Talk:Jesus/Archive 20 and Black Light Burns: Difference between pages

Revision as of 06:21, 16 May 2005

Revision as of 21:16, 21 July 2007

Line 1:

{{Infobox musical artist

{{todo}}

|Name = Black Light Burns

|Img =

|Img_capt =The touring band for Black Light Burns

|Img_size = (Only use for images smaller than 220 pixels)

|Background = group_or_band

|Origin = [[California]], [[USA]]

|Genre = [[Industrial Metal]] <br/> [[Alternative Rock]] <br/>

|Years_active = 2005 - Present

|Label = I AM: WOLFPACK

|Associated_acts = [[The Damning Well]]<br />[[Limp Bizkit]]<br />[[From First to Last]]<br />[[Nine Inch Nails]]<br /> [[A Perfect Circle]]<br /> [[The Esoteric]]<br /> [[Telefon Tel Aviv]]

|URL = [http://www.blacklightburns.com/ Official Website]

|Current_members = [[Wes Borland]]<br />[[Danny Lohner]]<br />Josh Eustis<br />[[Josh Freese]]<br />Nick Annis<br /> [[Marshall Kilpatric]]<br />Sean Fetterman

|Past_members =

}}

'''Black Light Burns''' is an [[United States|American]] [[rock music]] [[supergroup]] created by [[Wes Borland]] (formerly of [[Limp Bizkit]], [[Big Dumb Face]], Eat the Day). The band's lineup consists of Borland himself, along with [[Danny Lohner]] ([[Nine Inch Nails]], [[A Perfect Circle]]), [[Josh Eustis]] ([[Telefon Tel Aviv]]) and [[Josh Freese]] ([[The Vandals]], [[A Perfect Circle]], [[Nine Inch Nails]]). Their debut [[album]], ''[[Cruel Melody]]'', was released on [[June 5]], [[2007]].

;Talk archives

*[[Talk:Josephus on Jesus]]

*[[Talk:Virgin Birth]]

*[[/Archive 1]] - Neutrality of images of Jesus; Genealogy of Jesus

*[[/Archive 2]] - Genealogy cont, Images cont, Jesus' language, opening preface

*[[/Archive 3]] - Mainly about NPOV, historical sources and possible ahistoricity of Jesus

*[[/Archive 4]] - Mainly about Opening preface. Also asceticism & Gnostic sources

*[[/Archive 5]] - Various. Mainly preface and alleged details of Jesus' life

*[[/Archive 6]] - Much more on Gnosticism, re: section moved to [[Jesus and textual evidence]]

*[[/Archive 7]] - Jewish messiah; what is a historian; etc.

*[[/Archive 8]] - Mary Magdalene, Arugmentative edits, etc.

*[[/Archive 9]] - Name of page, non-Christian perspectives, etc.

*[[/Archive 10]] - Aramaic, Archive, Too long

*[[/Archive 11]]

*[[/Archive 12]] - Various. Includes discusion on koans.

*[[/Archive 13]]

*[[/Archive 14]]

*[[/Archive 15]] - debate over AD vs. CE prior to vote

==History==

====List pro BCE/CE votes here (note: applies to this article '''ONLY''')====

Borland states that Black Light Burns is the culmination of the various projects he has been working on ever since he quit [[Limp Bizkit]] in 2001. Things began with [[Big Dumb Face]], a solo project that Borland had been working on during his time with Limp Bizkit. Borland didn't take the project too seriously, and used it to basically test the waters, and see how hard it would be to do something serious on his own, without the aid of his bandmates. After he quit the band, he began working on several different projects. The first of which was supposed to be an [[instrumental]] album one could listen to and simply relax. Simultaneously, he began Eat The Day. With this project, Borland stated that he became cocky, and thought because of his previous success with Limp Bizkit, duplicating that success with a new band would be simple. He soon found out this wasn't the case. Eat The Day eventually unraveled itself, as, in Borland's words, ''"I think everybody involved in that project had different ideas about the direction that it should go"''. Borland became self-absorbed, and along with continuous pressure from the label, and struggles finding a lead singer for the band, the project eventually disbanded.[http://odeo.com/audio/424480/view]

# aye [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 07:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Support''' for the reasons that I've given above. Note that this vote isn't binding, but is a way to attempt to gain consensus; thus those people who haven't been involved in the discussion should give reasons &mdash; and reasons that take into account what has been said. Merely parrotting a reason that has been countered isn't helpful. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 10:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

# Yes to the academic/professional usage of choice. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 10:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

##<s>See my response to Silversmith in a subsection titled 'Style Guides and Peer Review.' [[User:El C|El_C]] 13:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)</s> &mdash; I'm not playing anymore. [[User:El C|El_C]] 13:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

# BCE/CE. duh. This is not a religious encyclopedia. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] 15:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

# Yes, my reasons are above, and will be below. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

# This is the common academic and professional usage, and it reasonably common in non-academic usage as well; if Wikipedia wants to become a respected encyclopedia, this is one of the things it will have to do. Also, BC/AD is not used in the [[ISO 8601]] standard for date formats. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

# An article on Jesus that incorporates a statement that Jesus is Lord cannot be NPOV on Jesus. Most articles, it matters less, because they are either not about Jesus and/or the AD is just plainly omitted. [[GMT]] vs. [[UTC]] is good analogy. To those who voted "no, because of policy", '''which policy do you think you are referring to?''' Someone please quote source for this -- Turns out policy referred to is to keep Brit/American spelling of first user - but this is overridden by any other concern, such as whether it is topic about America or Britain - and NPOV overrides just about all other policies, does it not? -- [[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 18:06, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

#The neutral, academic, easy-to-understand term. AD means ''in the year of our Lord''. I am Jewish. Jesus is not my Lord. And NPOV is non-negotiable. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]^{[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]} 21:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

# Per Slrubenstein. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 02:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

# Seems obvious. [[User:Flyers13|Flyers13]] 03:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

# Changing my vote from BC/AD to BCE/CE; see my comment [[Talk:Jesus#Policy_vs._Style_Guide|here]]. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 05:22, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

# Support. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 13:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

# BCE/CE is the academic standard let us use it uniformily on wikipedia. --{{User:Sunborn/si}} 19:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

# BC/AD is POV - not everyone considers Jesus to be Christ or Domini. [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;[[User_talk:Jfdwolff|<small>T@lk</small>]] 20:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

# '''Support'''. For obvious reasons. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 20:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

# '''Support'''. Academic standard and ISO standard, regardless of whose lord anyone is. [[User:Kuratowski's Ghost|Kuratowski's Ghost]] 21:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

# '''Support''' for reasons of internal consistency and NPOV. -- [[User:Olve|Olve]] 21:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

# '''Support''' for NPOV and Academic standards. --[[User:Eliezer|Eliezer]] 23:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

#'''Support''' as academic standard. --[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas ]] | [[User_talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 00:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. More neutral. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 03:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

#'''Support''', for both academic and NPOV standards. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 05:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

#'''Support''', for this article and all articles. [[User:Srs|srs]] 06:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

# '''Support''' for reasons of internal consistency and NPOV. -- [[User:Dittaeva|Dittaeva]] 07:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

#Strongly '''support''' what Ambi said. [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]]&larr;[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]]&larr;[[User talk:Humus_sapiens|Talk]] 07:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

# '''support''' already in use at a lot of places [[User:Switisweti|Switisweti]] 10:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

#'''Support''' - NPOV --[[User:Mrfixter|Mrfixter]] 16:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

#'''Support''' echoing [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] primarily with some thoughts that BCE/CE is the most NPOV system to use. -[[User:SocratesJedi|SocratesJedi]] | [[User_talk:SocratesJedi|Talk]] 21:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. More neutral. [[User:Jonathunder|Jonathunder]] 06:07, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

#'''Support'''. [[User:CDThieme|CDThieme]] 03:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In terms of their lineup, Black Light Burns is somewhat of a successor to the brief project ''[[The Damning Well]]'', which consisted of mostly the same members. The main difference this time around being that Borland has taken vocals into his own hands, after many attempts to find a proper vocalist in various projects.

====List pro BC/AD votes here (note: applies to this article ONLY) ====

#Per policy. [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 08:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

#*<s>For reasons I stated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=13458664 above] (for this article only) and also based on precedence to follow style used by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&oldid=6799561 first major contributor] if all else fails (as in [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English|spelling styles]]). --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 08:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC) '''**Note:''' I would support a policy change, however, to universally use BCE/CE throughout Wikipedia, particularly on religious articles. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 19:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)</s> What I originally understood as policy turns out to be mere guideline, and even the guidelines point to the underlying principle of [[NPOV]] as being more important than style. So I am changing my vote to BCE/CE for this article. Also see my comment [[Talk:Jesus#Policy_vs._Style_Guide|here]]. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 05:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

#Since [[User:Tomer]] successfully negated the arguments about Chinese calendar, etc., and since even if Tomer is correct that "Thus far, neither group has brought forth any overriding authoritative rationale for using either", that would mean that the original use should remain. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 09:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

#[[Anno Domini]] --[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 10:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

#Since [[Culture|no-one knows]] what BC, AD, CE or BCE mean anyway, it's pretty pointless, and changing from the most commonly used will just cause confusion, as it did with me on another article. By the way, all our redirects go from BCE to BC, so we'd have double redirects which is pretty stupid. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 10:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

#Keep BC/AD. It's more familiar by far & no legitimate case has been made for changing it, only Politically Correct POV's. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 15:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

#Keep BC/AD. My reasons are documented above, the main one being that I consider CE/BCE a contrivance of the political correctness lobby.[[User:Arcturus|Arcturus]] 17:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

# Keep BC/AD. This is why we have policies. [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] 19:03, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

# Keep because God told me to do so. Favour established humanity over doctrines of the [[anti-christ]]. Also BCE and CE are not recognised by [[ISO 8601]].[[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 19:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

# Keep BC/AD. Wikipedia is not a forum for revisionist history. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]^{[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_baas&action=edit&section=new new]} 22:19, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

#Keep as originally written, as per the MoS. [[User:JYolkowski|JYolkowski]] // [[User talk:JYolkowski|talk]] 22:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

# Makes no sense to use a year-numbering system with a year 0 (or 1) without acknowledging the significance of the date. {{User:Rdsmith4/Sig}} 02:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

# BCE/CE is a euphemism, and therefore POV. [[User:Susvolans|Susvolans]] [[User talk:Susvolans|(pigs can fly)]] 14:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

# Keep BC/AD as it is more easily understood and more common. [[User:Rossnixon|RossNixon]] 01:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

# Keep BC/AD - it is more common and more widely understood. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 11:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

# BC/AD - ít is more common, more original (as regarding the calendar), and certainly not more POV than the alternative. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 15:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

# BC/AD - common, and essentially meaningless. My religious beliefs have nothing to do with jews, jesus, or whatever, and I don't care about BC/AD. CE/BCE isn't "more" academic, it's just used by some (definitely not all, or dare even most). and encyclopedias aren't academic, they are explanations for common people who don't want, or care, about academic ivory tower hairsplitting over AD/BC/E/CE. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 22:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

# Certainly appropriate for this article. Generally let people use what they want. [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 02:10, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

After the 'failure' of Borland's various projects, Borland began writing a solo record with [[Danny Lohner]], [[John Freese]], [[Josh Eustis]], and [[John Bates]] all contributing. This solo record was the beginning of Black Light Burns, and stylistically at the time, it was more of a mellow, relaxing, and esoteric outing. Wes returned to Limp Bizkit once again in late summer of 2004, turning down the spot as [[Nine Inch Nails]] touring guitar player. According to vocalist [[Fred Durst]], Borland only agreed to return to the band on the condition that their label, Geffen, agreed to support his then burgeoning solo project, Black Light Burns.

====Continue pointless discussion here====

It began only as a side project, with Borland writing many of the songs during his time off from Limp Bizkit, but soon things in Limp Bizkit became very quiet, and Borland himself stated that Black Light Burns was now his main project, and anything else he did, including Limp Bizkit, was a side project. Eventually arguments broke out on [[MySpace]] between Borland and Durst, and Borland left Limp Bizkit once again, although according to him, the band members had already gone their separate ways, he simply decided not to return. By this time, however, Borland had written significantly heavier material for Black Light Burns alongside the softer material, and Black Light Burns had evolved into a full out band as opposed to a softer solo effort.

'''Comment''': I've just replaced a vote to keep (and some minor formatting) removed by [[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] ([[User talk:Silversmith|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Silversmith|contributions]]) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=next&oldid=13470954]). I'd like to think that this was an accident, though to be honest it's difficult to see how it could have been. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 11:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

:'''Important''': This is very, very strange. I did not make that second edit. I know it looks like I did, as it was made by [[User:Silversmith]], but it '''was not me'''. I voted, before Zora or Mel, and while they were voting, I was making my second edit which was not in the voting secion. I then left the page, not even noticing that Mel or Zora had voted. It is very strange that the signature was re-signed 2 minutes after my edit outside of the voting, when Zora's vote was removed. The only thing I can think of is someone has guessed my password, or someone has hacked wikipedia. I know both of those options are unlikely, but as I did not make that second edit it's the only possibility I can come up with. I remember having an edit conflict, and had to copy and paste what I'd written back in, but as it was not below the vote, I would not have grabbed the vote as well by accident. I also only wrote that edit summery once. I don't repeat myself unless I'm writing "Stub sorting" or something. If you were to look over my contibution history you would see that in all the votes I've participated in, I've never done something like this. I know how wikipedia works, and would never do something so stupid - of course it would be found in the history! This is very strange, and I would love it if the person who made the edit would come forward and admit it. I'm off to change my password now. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 13:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

::Mel, I don't think you are exhibiting goodfaith with these insinuations, and I would like to see you retract them. Anyway, it may have been a product of that edit conflict (Silversmith having submitted it without noticing), or a glitch. I highly doubt Wikipedia was hacked, I doubt Silversmith account was hacked (or password guessed), and most of all, I doubt this was ''anything but'' an accident. I'm late! [[User:El C|El_C]] 13:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The Black Light Burns song titled "I Have a Need" was instrumentally written to be included on the Limp Bizkit release [[The Unquestionable Truth (Part 1)]], but was cut in order for the EP to remain mostly metal oriented. It features [[Limp Bizkit|Limp Bizkit's]] bassist [[Sam Rivers (bassist)|Sam Rivers]] on the track, and Wes was allowed to use the song for Black Light Burns when the song was turned down for use by Limp Bizkit.

I refuse to vote. Voting is stupid in a wiki. Nothing is resolved by it, except that one side has a stick to bully the other with. BTW, Mel, El C, Silversmith, I had a strange server glitch earlier today in which two comments were wiped out. I didn't even know they existed and only knew I had wiped it out when I received a message about it. You're all people I like and respect as editors, so please, let's all play nicely! [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 13:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

On June 16, Borland announced that the band and [[Geffen Records]] had parted ways. There was little word in the following months over the situation regarding a new label, though as of October 25, the band is in negotiations with a label, and are hoping to release their debut album early 2007.

*Well, I'm glad that seems to be the answer, a glich. Very strange though. I can't even log in now, well, I keep logging in then it logs me out. And every time I try to make an edit it comes up with a server error. It also saved something I wrote that I didn't save due to a server error. I just closed all the windows and gave up. Silversmith --[[User:Chammy Koala|Chammy Koala]] 13:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Borland has stated that he is the only constant in Black Light Burns, as the other members of the studio lineup are expected to be mostly unable to participate in touring with Black Light Burns, such as the notoriously busy [[Josh Freese]].

::My apologies if I seemed to be insinuating anything. Nothing about [[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]]'s (or [[User:Chammy Koala|Chammy Koala]]'s) history suggested that she'd deliberately do anything underhand, as I said when I went on to alert her to it on her Talk page. My comment above was partly the result of haste, and partly of the "Silversmith" ID being new to me. It would be good to know what happened and how, though, if only to be able to recognise if it happens again. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 14:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The initial touring lineup of Black Light Burns [[Wes Borland]] - Vocals, Guitar, [[Marshall Kilpatric]] - Drums (previously in [[The Esoteric]]), Nick Annis - Guitar (previously in [[Open Hand]], [[Turn of the Screw]]), Sean Fetterman - Bass (previously in [[Turn of the Screw]]).

*Ok, it's just happened again. I made an edit, pressed save, it came up with an error, then I pressed save agin, this time it came up with an edit conflict, I pressed save again after copying and pasting my edit. When I went to save after the edit conflict, I added info to the edit summery. If you look at the history you will see that it did actually save my edit the first time, even though it just came up with an error, then it saved it after the edit conflict, and just changed the date on the signature. So earlier, I must have had an error, it saved it without my knowing, then I saved it again, and somehow Zora's vote was deleted, not deliberately by me. Something to look out for if you ever have an error - check the history! Silversmith. --[[User:Chammy Koala|Chammy Koala]] 14:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

However, Black Light Burns' first tour was previously set to begin in fall of 2006 with [[From First to Last]], who Borland also plays bass for on and off. This tour was to feature Borland doing double duty as the singer/guitarist for Black Light Burns and then bassist for [[From First to Last]] afterwards. However, Sonny Moore ([[From First to Last]]) developed a node on his right vocal chord and has to get surgery, thus ending Wes Borland's current touring stint with [[From First to Last]].

On February 3rd, 2007,Wes announced through the official Black Light Burns Myspace, that the band has now signed to [[Ross Robinson]]'s new label I AM: WOLFPACK.

On February 5, 2007, Borland announced that the official release date for the album is [[June 5]], [[2007]].

The arguments given by those who favor AD are hypocritical and disingenuous for two reasons. First, Grace Note, who favors AD, asks of the CE system "Who has it in common with whom?" But Nob, who also favors the AD system, provides the answer: the current system of dating (by which this is 2005) "is currently commonly used globally by all cultures and civilizations, Islamic, Sinic, Japanese, Hindu, etc." This is why we call it the "common era" -- because many non-Christian groups use it also. They do not use it because they believe Jesus is Christ or the Lord, they use it as a ''convention'' to coordinate activities and records of activities with one another. So CE makes perfect sense. Second, opponents of CE claim that it is POV. Why? Because it involves their changing one of their habits. Sorry, but this is ''not'' what POV means. "POV" does not refer to anything that leads you to change a belief or practice, it refers to beliefs or practices that represent one point of view. This is indeed true of BC/AD. It represents the point of view of those who think Jesus is Christ or who think Jesus is the Lord. Now, I know that many people who call themselves non-Christians use these terms, but that is because the West is largely a Christian culture, by which I mean that many practices that have their origin in Christianity are taken for granted, regardless of what people believe (this is one meaning of "culture," a historically and locally specific set of habits). It should surprise no one that a google search shows that the vast majority of people use AD/BC, since the vaste majority of sites on the web are from Christian or Christianized societies. But again, the claim that AD is NPOV because it is accepted by a majority is '''ABSURD''. All it means is that many people have this POV, not that it is NPOV. Most people in the antebellum South (and probably the North too) thought Blacks were inferior. That most people thought this doesn't mean that it is an objective fact, indeed it is still a point of view, a highly biased one. So let's leave out the numbers, shall we? They are irrelevant. I and many people like me &mdash; in fact most Jews I know &ndash; have no problem with Christians using BC and AD among themselves since it is after all their religion. But we are deeply offended when these terms are applied to ordinary events or even our own history, because we do not believe Jesus was Christ or the Lord. We can accept the numbers (e.g. 2005) as a convention, but this number (2005) has meaning because many people accept it as a convention. But those many people do not accept that Jesus is Lord. That reflects one point of view and is by no means neutral. Now, why do opponents of BCE and CE think these terms are POV? I have read through this entire discussion and the only answer I can see is: "because it is different from what we are used to." This is a pathetic position. Anyone who believes that their own points of view are neutral points of view either does not understand what NPOV is, or does not accept the principle of NPOV. And for any Wikipedia to claim that BCE/CE is POV is pure hypocracy, because their reason for opposing it is simply because they do not like it. Look, I know that this year is actually 5765. It ''really'' is. That's the truth. But I recognize that this is just my point of view, and in an NPOV encyclopedia I have no right to impose this on others. Like many non-Christians, I have no problem using 2005 in common discourse as a ''convention'' and as a ''convenience'' &mdash; but ''never'' because it is "the yearof our Lord." And to tell me that I must accept it, not as a convention but as the year of our Lord, is to impose your point of view on me. I will not impose my POV on you and force you to call this year 5765. Do not force me to use BC/AD. We can come to a mutually acceptable NPOV convention, and that is to use your number (2005) but stop saying that it "is the year of our Lord." He's not my Lord. And if the policy says BC/AD is acceptable, that policy should be changed. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Lie served as the first single from the album, going to radio on March 20. A music video was released soon after this.

:Re your statement "And if the policy says BC/AD is acceptable, that policy should be changed." That's something for you to take up with the policy itself then if you truly feel that way. But right now the policy is clear that BC/AD is both allowed and placed on equal footing with your alternative of BCE/CE. As long as that remains the policy of Wikipedia in general, your complaints are not a valid basis to challenge BC/AD's use on a particular article and you have no grounds to force other people to use BCE/CE. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 17:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Borland announced touring dates for May 2007 opening for [[Chevelle]] in April. While staying in Texas for a show, Chevelle was robbed of their equipment and canceled all tour dates for that week. Black Light Burns was unsatisfied with not playing for this time and played a few shows to test the waters of their upcoming headlining tour.

===Style guides and Peer Review===

In its first week of release [[Cruel Melody]] sold 6,000 copies in the US according to Indiehq.com. (http://indiehq.com/2007/06/13/536/#more-536)

Very briefly. Also, please see '''''<big>[[Talk:Jesus/Archive_15#Style_guides_and_Peer_Review]]</big>''''' (a trick I learned from someone's signature!). And at the grave risk of intense POV, welcome back, SR! [[User:El C|El_C]] 15:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Borland says that he has already written about 8 new songs for the follow up to [[Cruel Melody]], with their drummer [[Marshall Kilpatric]] aiding in the writing process. Borland also has stated a strong desire to try and write more songs for Black Light Burns with [[Sam Rivers]] of [[Limp Bizkit]] on bass, and to get [[DJ Lethal]] of [[Limp Bizkit]] to do some programming parts on the next record as well.

:Slr, I think that last sentence of yours is the bottom line here. It's changing [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras|the policy]] that needs to be discussed rather than focusing on this article if the case is to be made that BCE/CE is the preferred style. Otherwise, if Wikipedia supports the usage of both (as it currently does), where ''is'' it appropriate to use BC/AD if not this article? Based on the guideline that the two systems are acceptable in the way that British/American spelling styles are both accepted, I've reverted, for example, attempts by other editors to change BCE/CE to BC/AD on Jewish articles because BC/AD in those cases is akin to enforcing American spellings on an article about London. On that same basis, I support BC/AD usage on this article (until and unless policy lays out a preference). I'd also like to respond to a point above in which someone protested that since there is not a cultural trend to rename other date systems like the days of the week or the months named after Nordic or Roman gods, the push to single out era for terminology neutralization is somehow antiChristian. My response is that worshippers of Nordic and Roman gods are not really extant today in a widespread sense, so week/month names do not impinge on general societal values and sensitivities in the same way the usage of Christocentric BC/AD nomenclature, which represents an existing dominant section of Western society today, is seen to delegitimize nonChristian segments of society. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 16:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

==Band Members==

::Good points. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Much like Nine Inch Nails, Black Light Burns consists of two entities, the studio band, and the live band. Some members of the band that recorded in the studio may not be able to tour with the band, and future live members might contribute to future CD releases, therefore lineup changes could occur. Borland did all of the vocals, guitar, and bass on the album, except on the following spots:

===Guest Contributors===

I'm not clear that they all are. Not using an explicitly Christian reference in an article on Judaism is no more or less PoV than using that same reference in an article on Christianity; the status of NPoV is unchanged from religion to religion. To exaggerate the example in order to bring out the problem: it would be wrong to say in the [[Judaism]] article: "Jews wrongly deny that Jesus was the true Messiah through whom alone salvation is possible" &mdash; but it would be equally wrong to say that in this article (and to defend it by asking rhetorically "if we can't proclaim the Christian faith in this article, then where ''can'' we proclaim it?"). The wrongness doesn't lie in a mismatch between claim and article, that's fundamentally to misunderstand the nature of NPoV. (The analogy with British/U.S. English fails, because they don't embody claims about the world.)

*[[Sonny Moore]] - vocals on "Coward"

*[[Danny Lohner]] - second guitar on "Coward" and "I Have a Need"

*[[Sam Rivers (bass guitarist)|Sam Rivers]] - bass on "I Have a Need"

*[[Carina Round]] - vocals on "Cruel Melody"

*[[Johnette Napolitano]] - vocals on "I Am Where it Takes Me"

*Endless Hallway -certain members appear on one of the three still as-of-yet-titled song written during the summer of 2006, that will be included on [[Cruel Melody]].

===Studio===

In non-religious articles the case is less pressing, though personally I'd argue (and do argue) for the use of "BCE/CE" throughout Wikipedia, as it is in other respectable and respected publications and reference works (as indicated by El C's invaluable list above). [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 17:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

* [[Wes Borland]] - Vocals, Guitar, Bass, Keyboards (previously in [[Limp Bizkit]], Eat The Day, [[Big Dumb Face]])

* [[Danny Lohner]] - Bass, Guitar, Keyboards, Sound Design (previously in [[Nine Inch Nails]], [[A Perfect Circle]])

* [[Josh Freese]] - Drums/Percussion ([[The Vandals]], [[Nine Inch Nails]], [[A Perfect Circle]])

* [[Josh Eustice]] - Keyboards/Sound Design ([[Telefon Tel Aviv]])

===Live Band===

::Good points. :-) [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 17:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

''Note: The live band consists of four positions.''

* [[Wes Borland]] - Vocals, Guitar

::They are indeed good points. World at large take note: Jay and I agree on something. At last. ;) [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 12:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

* [[Marshall Kilpatric]] - Drums (previously in [[The Esoteric]])

* Nick Annis - Guitar (previously in [[Open Hand]], [[Turn of the Screw (band)]], shortly played for [[Seether]] while on tour in [[Ozzfest]])

* Sean Fetterman - Bass (previously in [[Turn of the Screw (band)]])

*Wes Borland's [[Macbook Pro]] will be playing the keyboard or loops that the four above bandmembers can't/won't be playing live. According to Borland, Josh Eustis, who played keyboards and sound design on Cruel Melody, was supposed to join the live lineup, but opted to do production instead, leaving Borland to use his laptop to reproduce samples and keyboards live.

:::Hey I propose we start a new date system based on this epoch-level event. Today can be 1 JB (day 1 on the JayBran-Consensus Calendar). --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 16:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

==Discography==

::Well Mel Etitis, you DO make a good point that perhaps *''especially''* in religious articles, BCE/CE should be used, and in fact, if I understand correctly, I believe the attempt to be neutral when referring to era began in ''theological'' circles about 100 years ago [edit conflict w/Nobs who says half century ago by rabbinical scholars, hmmm, I don't think it was limited to rabbinical scholars but began as an academic theological trend in general]. I'm not sure though that BC/AD is as value-laden as explicitly stating "Jews wrongly deny" etc. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 17:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

===Discography===

{{main|Black Light Burns Discography}}

{| border="2" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px #aaa solid; border-collapse: collapse; font-size: 95%;"

|'''Album Cover'''

|'''Date of Release'''

|'''Title'''

|'''U.S. sales'''

|- Gold

|<!-- Commented out because image was deleted: [[Image:Cruel Melody.jpg|center|100px|]] -->

|2007

|''[[Cruel Melody]]''

|6,000

|-

|}

===Singles===

::"respectable and respected publications"??? Sounds like a [[POV]] to me. Besides, if you want to argue for BCE/CE throughout wikipedia, you need to take that up on the style manual's discussion page cause right now sweeping through and changing everything to it conflicts with the policy. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 18:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable"

! rowspan="2"| Year

! rowspan="2"| Title

! colspan="8"| Chart positions

! width="60" rowspan="2"|Sales

! rowspan="2"| Album

|-

! width="43"| <small>[[Billboard Hot 100|U.S.]]</small>

! width="43"| <small>[[US Modern Rock|U.S. Modern Rock]]</small>

! width="43"| <small>[[U.S. Mainstream Rock]]</small>

! width="43"| <small>[[UK Singles Chart|UK]]</small>

! width="43"| <small>[[Canada|CAN]]</small>

! width="43"| <small>[[Germany|GER]]</small>

! width="43"| <small>[[Irish Singles Chart|IRL]]</small>

! width="43"| <small>[[United World Chart|UWC]]</small>

|-

|align="center" rowspan="2"|2007

| "[[Lie (song)|Lie]]"

| align="center" | -

| align="center" | -

| align="center" | 22

| align="center" | -

| align="center" | -

| align="center" | -

| align="center" | -

| align="center" | -

|

|align="center" rowspan="4"|''[[Cruel Melody]]''

|-

|} but yeah

==Reviews==

* [http://www.live-metal.net/cdreviews_blacklightburns_cruelmelody.html#Review"''Cruel Melody''"] by Greg Maki for [http://www.live-metal.net/ Live-Metal.net]

Hey, um... not sure where to insert this, but I just wanted to say that I have no dog in the CE/BC-AD fight, but I do feel strongly that there should be a note explaining why Jesus is thought to have been born 6 years before when the calendar starts. So whatever y'all end up deciding, please leave that parenthetical note in--whether you say B.C. or B.C.E. --[[User:Chowbok|Chowbok]] 19:13, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

:So, like, if you revert it, at least argue with me about it first. --[[User:Chowbok|Chowbok]] 03:15, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

==External links==

===lovely little list===

*[http://www.blacklightburns.com Black Light Burns official website]

::*Yes, lovely little list. How about this one:

*[http://www.blacklightburns.com/community/index.php Black Light Burns Community]

::#''A History of the Ancient World'' by Chester G. Starr. "The Greek world in 500 '''B.C.'''"

*[http://blacklightburns.org stopthebullet.info joins blacklightburns.org]

::#''Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations'' by Arthur Cotterell. "The period between about 3100 BC when dynastic history began, and 332 '''BC'''."

*[http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=36794676 Black Light Burns Official Myspace]

::#''History of the Ancient Near East: Ca. 3000-323 '''Bc''''' by Marc Van De Mieroop. "And the origins of writing in the Near East, around 3000 '''BC''',"

*[http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003563612 Black Light Burns article for Billboard.com]

::#''New Penguin Atlas of Ancient History'' by Colin McEvedy. "the historic cultures of Europe and the Near East up to the fourth century '''AD'''."

*[http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/wes_borland_no_rules_exist_in_black_light_burns.html]

::#''The New History of the World'' by J. M. Roberts. "The Hellenistic World soon after 200 '''BC'''."

::#''Oxford 1st Ancient History'' by Roy Burrell "Hunters and gatherers throughout all of the Americas by about 10,000 '''BC'''."

::#''The Atlas of Early Man : The Rise of Man Across the Globe, From 35,000 '''B.C.''' to '''A.D.''' 500 With Over 1,000 Maps And Illustrations'' by Jaquetta Hawkes. (It's in the title).

::#''A History of Ancient Egypt'' by Nicolas Grimal. "Naqada II period, c. 3650 - 3300 '''BC'''."

::#''Ancient Rome : A Military and Political History'' by Christopher S. Mackay. "...Italian Iron Age to the deposition of the last emperor in '''A.D''' 476."

::#''The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 10, The Augustan Empire, 43 '''BC-AD''' 69 (The Cambridge Ancient History)'' by Alan K. Bowman. (It's in the title.)

::And yes, I could go on. All of these books are available on Amazon today. I agree that there is some use of BCE/CE but you can't claim it's the norm anywhere. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 18:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

::**Acutally, so you don't think I've deliberatly left out religious books, or Jewish related books:

::#''A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People: From the Time of the Patriarchs to the Present'' by ELI BARNAVI. "The background seems to be the fist half of the second millennium '''BC'''."

::#''A History of the Jews'' by Paul M. Johnson. "...the discovery of contemporary archives from the third and second millennia '''BC'''."

::#''History of Religious Ideas, Volume 1 : From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries (History of Religious Ideas)'' by Mircea Eliade. "...for the use of fire dates from Choukoutien (about 600,000 '''B.C.''')".--[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 18:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

-----

#Publication date: 30 May '''1991.''' Oxford University Press says: Links to web resources and related information ''More in the same subject area: World history: BCE to c 500 CE'' [http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-506628-6]

#Noted in this Syllabus as Cotterell, Arthur, ed. ''The Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations.'' Penguin Books, '''1989'''. Prof. Kathy Payne says: "c. 3000 - 1200 BCE," etc. [http://faculty.weber.edu/KLPAYNE/History4210/default.htm]

#<s>Marc Van De Mieroop, Professor of History at Columbia says: ''History of the Ancient Near East, ca. 3000 - 323 B.C. ('''2004''').'' Looks like the new edition chose to go with BCE.</s> [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/history/htm/h_faculty_profile_vandemier.htm] [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0631225528/103-6616571-1683816?v=glance Amazon concurs]. Hmm, I think I misread that. Still, the point is that the <u>author</u> of that book now uses BCE as is evident by his own official page at Columbia university: "He has recently finished three book-length projects: ''Early Civilizations and Cultures, 4000-1000 BCE...''" [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/history/htm/h_faculty_profile_vandemier.htm]

# Published in '''1989''', too.

# Published '''2005'''. "Indeed [as is the case often, no one is disputing that], "the authors use the BC - AD designation rather than the more general BCE - CE form" [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521809185/103-5306393-2143064?v=glance]

# Published [I kid you not] in '''1989'''. Practica.org lists under category "World History: Bce To C 500 Ce" [http://practical.org/browse/classical-greek-roman-archaeology].

::<code>And yes, I could go on. All of these books are available on Amazon today.</code> Amazon uses BCE/CE in its categories. [http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index%3Dbooks%26field-keywords%3DWorld%20history%3A%20BCE%20to%20c%20500%20CE/103-0668118-0544642] Incidetnally, not a single Peer Review publication is listed in this pronouncedly ''undated'' book list sample.

# Originally published in '''1992'''; has it been changed in the "revised" 2004 edition? Maybe, maybe not. [http://practical.org/browse/historical-atlases]

# Published '''1988'''.

# Published in '''1978'''

[[User:El C|El_C]] 23:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Pointing out when they were published doesn't actually prove anything. They were all published after the first usage of BCE/CE. And they are all available now, which means that anyone who bought these books would be reading BC/AD. I also only spent about 15 minutes finding this list, and was limited to ones that had a "see inside this book" option. But as SLR points out below, proving the popularity is quite pointless as everyone knows BC/AD is the most commonly used. And just because in some fields there may now be a move to using BCE/CE, that has not been established as the trend on Wikipedia. And as has been pointed out, this is not the place to discuss that. If it became the standard, fine, I wouldn't change it. I only argue here becuase I believe the motivations for this article to be BCE/CE are POV, due to religion, and I aim to uphold NPOV on WP.--[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 10:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It suggests plenty, I thought, because obviously the trend has been (and remains) gradual. The point is, as I demonstrated above is that newer publications (<2000) would be more representative of that 'trend.' Second, for better or worse, books are a somewhat poor indication of [[Peer Review]], in part, because Journal standards tend to be kept more up to date. Third, I didn't spend more than 15 minutes either, so we have no verificiation whether newer editions (if any) of the books you listed employ it now (so date ties into that, too). Fourth, what I was able to demonstrate &mdash;and I do think it's worth acknowledgment&mdash; is that Oxford University Press (which hosts the first book) now uses the new dating system, or that the Columbia University historian of the 2nd one who used AD/BC in the title of his book, now uses it, too. Authoritative sources by any stretch. **** Now, the motivation behind BCE/CE itself (in the scholarship) are a product of POV, or rather what was percieved as counter-POV, mainly due to religion. That's why OUP and Oxford scholars such as Mel are now using it (that is, it happned/is happening outside of Wikipedia). I think it's safe to say that within the more professional scholarship &mdash;for our purposes, specifically, that which writes about the time/space of Jeses (which is SlR's field)&mdash; it is viewed as more modern, secular, or at least, prefrable. Therefore, if I am right about all this, about the role it plays in the scholarship (where Jorunals rather than books are more indicative of Peer Views), that it isn't limited to OUP but also many other authoritative sources, et cetera, etc., then we are at the question I posed to jguk bellow: should npov be evaluated in accordance with common or specialized use in this case. As I said there, I was in favour of BCE/CE because I thought npov is to be guided by the latter, but many people here insist it should be the former. And, as I also said, I haven't really read the npov article closely (due to lack of interest on my part!), so I leave that as an open-ended question for everyone else. If I could (and I will) criticize SlR, I think one of the problems here had been his tendency to make the argument as if this ''was'' the scholarship: saying that he was offended (unless he was being esp. subtle, though then, I would argue, somewhat unclear) by it. I don't think it's pertinent one way or the other. Whether he (and Neutrality and others) was offended has nothing to do with whether the experts are moving towards its use (esp. Peer-wise), or not. And whether npov should follow their lead, or not. That's the bottom line, the rest is a diversion. I realize I'm repeating myself (or am I?), but I seem to be having a real difficult time getting this point across. Honestly, it's the only reason I'm still involved in this dispute, a dispute of an issue which dosen't particularly interest me, because I seem to be failing to do so. To do what? The point! What point? Exactly. [[User:El C|El_C]] 11:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Careful, you may get so confused you forget what side you're arguing for. ;) I'm waiting to hear back from my sister who works in the publishing department of OUP in Oxford &mdash; I would like better confirmation on their stance.--[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 12:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Question to Slrubenstein: You make excellant points and all very valid. It is my understanding (and I may be wrong) the BCE originated with certain [[rabbinical]] [[scholars]] in perhaps the past half century, and your arguement makes an excellent explaination of their use of it. However, as I understood it, their use of it was intended for students of their writting and beliefs. My question is, do you believe they intended their concept to be [[hijacked]] by [[atheist]]s, those at enmity with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Thx. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[[Category:American musical groups]]

:First, I've never heard that the terminology had rabbinic origins; where did you hear that? Secondly, your point is at best ''ad hominem'' (in the true sense, not the all-too common Wikipedian misuse). [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 17:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[[de:Black Light Burns]]

''Inserting for the record: ad hominem adverb & adjective phrase Latin (= to the person). Of an argument, etc.: directed to the individual, personal; appealing to an opponent's known personal views rather than reason. ''

[[it:Black Light Burns]]

''Such an argument, which plays upon an opponent's own premises, seeking to draw from them a conclusion that is rejected by that same opponent, '''is a legitimate debating tactic''', unlike the kind of argumentum ad hominem that is really no more than a personal attack.''Source: [http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t33.e66|The Oxford Essential Dictionary of Foreign Terms in English] [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 18:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[[pl:Black Light Burns]]

::I would imagine [[Jacob Neusner]] (E-Mail: [e-mail]) is probably the foremost living expert to ask, if he didn't personally invent the term himself. The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style supports my understanding [http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t26.e219]. As does The Jewish Virtual Library[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/calendar.html#Years] and others [http://www.roarbush.com/jewcal/calsec9.htm] sources. I first reads the term (B.C.E) in [[Norman Podhoretz]]'s book copyright c.1968, can't remember the name of it though. And in older texts prior to 1968 I have only found references to "Common Era", but never an abbreviation, C.E.; of course I don't claim to have ever done any exclusive research on the subject. Also, C.E. can also be taken to mean [[Christian Era]] Thx. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 22:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

:::: I first encountered it 1960-61 (without abbreviation). Then in a Catholic school, I can remember being disappointed that it even existed, but recognized it was a fairer alternative to entrenched imposition upon non-Christians. Here's an interesting page http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 00:21, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

::::: Let me reverse myself, upon further review. The first published use of the abbreviated form of B.C.E. I ever encountered was Chaim Potek's ''Wanderings, History of the Jewish People'' published in 1978. I don't beleive I have ever seen any type of manuscript prior to that with the abbreviated form, and I challenge some of our researchers to find one. Thx. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 01:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::What is the [[Common Era]], other than the recognition that much of the non-Judaic world recognized and accepted a system of [[Law]] based upon Judaic scriptures. To reject the basis of the teachings, yet to continue reckoning time according to such raises all sorts of interersting questions. Everyone in the [[enlightened]] [[rationalist]] school for example knows that time is not reckoned by spiritual conversion of gentiles, but rather [[sidereal]] time, which again is problematic. So if we limit our reckoning of time to origns of planet earth and/or the universe, we come up with the year 13,000,000,000 or 15,000,000,000. Lets just average it, and call it the year 14,000,000,000 of the Common Era. Of coarse averaging it is problematic also, kind of like filling out a tax return, do we round up or round down. Damn, life is difficult when one is in possession of enlightened esoteric knowledge and one is forced to deal with the lumpen masses of opiated humanity. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 18:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Yes. More opium please. Following this almost requires it. On the server problem thing, I too noticed that there were some funky things going on yesterday, specifically with this page. I made a comment, hit save, got a server error, hit backspace, hit save again, and it worked...then I noticed that half of my comment had been inserted into the middle of another paragraph, so I raised my right eyebrow really high and went to take it out of there...but when the edit window opened, lo and behold, it was gone. so I hit cancel and reload, and *poof*, it was like it never happened. weirdness. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 19:40, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

To Silversmith: You might want to start a new discussion topic...your method of inserting above other comments without indenting to make clear which comments are responding to whom has sort of disrupted the flow of the conversation. For example, the way you stuck in your comment above jayjg's makes it look like his comment at 17:14 and also my comment at 17:54 responding to Mel Etitis are a response to yours. It makes it confusing for others to follow. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 19:06, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

:In fact, I fixed it myself above to restore the flow of the discussion. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 19:58, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&oldid=6799561 First major contributor] did not use AD, he referred to it. He did use BC, but "it is often assumed" can hardly be called ringing support for its usage. Anyway, is there really a policy on first major contributor? The server is bogged down, so I had to stop searching. So far I found [[Wikipedia:Ownership of articles]] and something about [[Be bold]]. Also [[Spelling preferences]] specifically overrides first major contributor...

Here's the relevant passage from First major contributor though...

<blockquote>

It is often assumed that Jesus was born in the year 4 or 5 B.C. and died at age 33.

The nomenclature of B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini - 'Year of our Lord') for years was based on a mistaken calculation of the year of his birth.

</blockquote>--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 21:40, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Silversmith above provides a long list of books that use BC/AD, but like others of his point of view, he mistakes quantity for neutrality. That many books use a POV term does not make that POV term NPOV. It is not a popularity contest. We know most Westerners use BC and AD, but we at Wikipedia have this "NPOV" policy and that is what is at issue. Above, Baas writes "Keep BC/AD. Wikipedia is not a forum for revisionist history." which again shows the intellectual dishonesty or dullness of that position. This has nothing to do with revisionist history. To state that many people do not believe that Jesus was Christ or our Lord is ''not'' revisionism; the NT itself observes that some people do not accept Jesus as Christ and Lord. Wikipedia should as well. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 23:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

:Slrubenstein - as usual there is a severe recurring flaw in your premise. As you have been shown many times, Wikipedia's NPOV policy says absolutely nothing barring the use of BC/AD and Wikipedia's Style Manual explicitly condones it as one of two acceptable dating systems. You're free to disagree with those policies and even lobby to get them changed if you want, but you're not free to misrepresent them as you do above and as you have been doing for the past several days. Furthermore, your penchant for insulting and attacking the person of people who disagree with you is also growing tiresome and has no place on this forum. Considering your 3RR violation yesterday and pattern of similar warnings and behaviors, you should take greater care in what you say and post around here. This is your warning. Learn to behave in a civil and respectful manner or else intervention will be sought. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 00:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

* Btw, [[6 BC|6]] [[Common Era|BCE]] does NOT do any redirect, nor does [[30]] [[Common Era|CE]] --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 01:46, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

::::Slrubenstein - "but like others of his point of view" you say. Well, El C, who shares ''your'' point of view, has povided a nice long list as well, which prompted me to provide mine. So thank you for pointing out the futility of his efforts as well. And I don't appreciate your calling me ''he''. If you don't know, try he/she or something.

*[[6 BCE]] redirects to 6 BC and [[30 BCE]] redirects to 30 BC and [[30 CE]] does not exist. I think that gives a good indication of the wiki stance on BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. Why change a perfectly good, majority accepted system? oh, yeah, because you don't like it because Jesus isn't "your Lord". But that's your POV. And he isn't ''my'' lord either, so don't claim that's the basis for my argument. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 10:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

* Despite Wikipedia's style guide preference for [[AD 30]], it too does not exist in wikipedia. [[30 AD]] redirects to [[30]], however. I guess some things need to be changed, no? --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 22:23, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

::Wikipedia is a wiki, it's not carved in stone. Those mistakes can be cleaned up. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 19:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The '''one and only''' advantage of using BC/AD is that it is more '''common'''. Its disadvantages include:

*'''POV''' - AD 6 means the "6th year of the Lord". This is clearly a pro-Christian POV, whereas 6 CE means the "6th year of the Common era", which is '''neutral'''. No matter how stupid or silly you find the name "Common Era" it is far better, and far more neutral than the alternative.

*'''Factually Incorrect''' - Not only is it not neutral, it is factually incorrect as to the date of Jesus' birth.

*'''Offensive''' to (some) non-Christians, and people who don't accept Jesus as "Lord".

Given the above, I fail to see why BC/AD is being supported so vehemently, and the arguments of the supporters seem to boil down to:

*Keep the status quo (even though its inherently POV), because its "common".

*Changing something from a pro-Christian POV to a neutral POV is somehow anti-Christian (apparently from the [[George Bush]] school of thought where "You're either with us or against us".)

There also seem to be some who consider the most common term as the one we should here, but that is not true, especially when the common term espouses a particular POV or causes offense to a certain group of people. For example, we have [[People's Republic of China]], instead of the more common [[China]], and we have [[Republic of China]], instead of the more common [[Taiwan]]. [[User:Srs|srs]] 07:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

===Policy vs. Style Guide===

In comparing the "policies" on spelling and era styles, I notice the disclaimer on both guides (see American vs. British [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English|spelling]] style guidelines and BCE/CE vs. BC/AD [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Eras|era]] style guidelines) emphasizing that these are style guidelines and not policy. Both guides state at the top of each respective page:

"New contributors are reminded that clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. '''Writers are ''not'' expected or required to follow all or any these rules'''." Therefore the overriding principle in choosing the style to be used in a particular article is [[NPOV]]. I think the case can be and has been made for BCE/CE being the more NPOV terminology, which is why so many publishing houses are going in that direction as El_C demonstrated above. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 02:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

:Does that mean you are changing your vote? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 02:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::See also: '''''<big>[[Talk:Jesus#lovely_little_list]].</big>''''' :) [[User:El C|El_C]] 03:24, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Before a decision is made on this matter, I think the [[C.E.]] article needs to be reviewed and perhaps rewritten. It makes the assertion that the term began in academic circles in the 19th century and offers absolutely no support whatsoever of this claim. Thus far on this talk page, no one has found usage of the abbreviated form published prior to 1978. There is one citation from wiki claiming it was appeared in the ''Catholic Encylopedia'' of 1908, but that again I beleive was only the phrase "common era". And no one has produced any evidence of its scholarly use outside of Talmudic scholars. Hence, the co-opting of the phrase by non-believers in the Jewish providential being of Hebrew & Christian scriptures is suspect. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 03:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::Yes, I've reconsidered my vote and made changes to reflect my current understanding of policy on the matter. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 05:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I beleive all the evidence brought forward thus far weighs in the direction that BCE/CE originated among Christian academics and Talmudic scholars, and not among [[secular]] [[academia]]. This is an important distinction to be made before the term is exposed to popular abuse. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 22:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

===Another BCE/CE use: among Jehovah's Witnesses===

May I point out that the BCE/CE-system is used by preference by [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] all over the world, though I don't know what that means for this debate... [[User:Switisweti|Switisweti]] 11:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Interesting. Do you have a source for that usage? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 20:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Yes, '''all''' publications of [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] on (both biblical and non-biblical) history (and that's a lot: all their books and magazines) use this system. Just take any of them as an example. They use it to avoid referring to Jesus (BC/AD), as their main focus is on Jehovah. Even their online articles use the BCE/CE-system. Here's just one example: [http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2001/9/8/article_01.htm Watchtower online on Maya culture using BCE/CE]. [[User:Switisweti|Switisweti]] 10:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:They spell their name differently in English. Is it an NPOV violation for you to spell it that way? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 11:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::I don't know. How should it be spelled? [[User:Switisweti|Switisweti]] 14:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Oh, I see: I missed the ''h'' at the end of ''Jehovah''. I'm sorry. That was just a mistake, not a intentional "NPOV violation". I now corrected all instances. [[User:Switisweti|Switisweti]] 22:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:Sure. And the [[Society of Friends]] uses "Fifth Month" for the current month. Does that mean that Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires us to use that as well, to avoid reference to a Roman goddess? Certainly using "Fifth Month" would be the neutral way to do it, wouldn't it? How about Eighth Month, to avoid reference to an egomaniacal Roman emperor? Tenth Month to get rid of the silly counting calling it the eighth month based on some ancient calendar? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 11:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::I didn't say I agree with them. I merely stated that they use the system for a reason. That's all. Maybe it clears something of the origin of the BCE/CE system.[[User:Switisweti|Switisweti]] 14:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Can someone find a date that Jehovah's Witnesses began using BCE/CE convention? Again, this supports the evidence that BCE/CE began in [[religious]] [[community]] and not among [[secular]] [[academia]] as [[rationalist]]s contend, and meaning of [[common]] refers to [[worship]] and [[diety]], not the [[profane]] and [[vulgar]] use of the [[atheist]] POV.[[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 17:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::::The Jehovah's Witnesses have been using BCE/CE for as long as I can remember. Its use reflects their POV. (They deny the deity of Jesus). --[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 17:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

*The NPOV policy is non-negotiable.

*In every other instance I can think of, we use the most common word/phrasing for something

*There is no reason for this BC/AD vs BCE/CE issue to be any different (in fact, this means we cannot reasonably be different here without being POV)

*This practice ensures NPOV - we use a word/phrasing because it is the most common word/phrase for it

*This comes with the implication that if general usage outside WP changes - then WP will change to reflect general usage.

*This way we avoid making any comment at all in favour or against any usage (Compare the picture of Tony Blair on [[Politics of the United Kingdom]]. By having this picture, we are not saying we are in favour of Tony Blair, or that we like him. We have his picture because he is the current PM. When the PM changes, I would expect the picci to change to a picci of the new PM - and for that to be a totally uncontroversial edit.)

*Doing anything else always raises the question "Why are you doing something different?" And it's impossible to answer that without being POV - therein lies the rub.

*And this is especially important here. The act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE has caused much offence where it has been tried. Changing it in one exam question in one exam paper in New South Wales caused questions to be asked in both chambers of parliament and an admission from the Minister of Education that the change should not have happened. Introducing the teaching of what BCE/CE notation meant into the British National Curriculum in 2002 caused letters to be written to newspapers and the government agency responsible to note that, whilst pupils could use BCE/CE notation if they so wished, the agency itself would stick with BC/AD and there were no plans to change it. It's also hard to think of any page where such a change would alienate and cause as much offence as this one.

*BC/AD notation is used almost exclusively everywhere outside academic circles and the US. It is also the most dominant form by a long, long way in the US. The google searches, which will be biased towards US and academic usage here (ie they are likely to overstate BCE/CE usage), show a 9:1 split in favour of using BC/AD.

*This is so conclusive it is impossible for us to use anything other than BC/AD without breaking NPOV - doing anything else just opens up too many questions, none of which can be answered without reference to the responders political beliefs, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 05:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::You've raised a very valid point. Those who are claiming BCE/CE is more "neutral" than BC/AD are asserting a POV themselves that not everybody agrees with. The course of this dispute is testament to that fact, and many of the pro-BCE/CE editors often seem to believe that their ''opinions'' matter more than the opinions of others who differ with them. Right now, if anything, consensus on this issue is split down the middle for and against the change yet there are many here acting as if BCE/CE should take precedence anyway. Since BCE/CE is the '''proposed change''' to this article, and not the original terminology used for several years on it, it is automatically incumbent upon the proponents of that change to establish a consensus in favor of their desired course of action. To date they have not done so, and far from it. All we've gotten are a series of increasingly belligerent posts advocating POV's in favor of BCE/CE and claiming that BC/AD violates NPOV without consensus to that end and without a care that BCE/CE, in the form being used, may violate NPOV and even do so to a degree that far surpasses what they allege against BC/AD. When proposed changes give rise to editing disputes that fail to establish any reasonable consensus - as is indisputably the case here - the default solution is to retain the status quo until a consensus for something else emerges, if ever. The status quo here since the article's creation has been BC/AD, which is accordingly what should stand until a consensus is reached otherwise on both the alternative and the NPOV/POV status of the alternative. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 06:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::: Essentially so. BCE is essentially a non-Christian, unchristian or anti-christian POV. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 06:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Don't forget [[HUAC|Unamerican]], [[User:Nobs|Nobs]]! :p Well, no offence (really), but I found that to have been, erm, quite a legalistic and convoluted comment, [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]], but ultimately mostly a regurgitation. [[User:Jguk|jguk]], the question remains: who are we going to turn to for ''accuracy''? <code>"Why are [we] doing something different?"</code> ''We?'' Are we '''[[Oxford University|Oxford University Press]]''', etc.? Are they not authoritative? Why are ''they'' doing it? Incidentally, I, myself, am not offended by AD/BC, I'm almost certain I employed both dating systems on Wikipedia without noticing which one I used when. But since I focus on 20th Century history, it's usually an aside. Whereas here, the fundamentals of the npov policy (which I have heard of, though admittedly, only in passing) seem to be at stake &mdash;perhaps I'm mistaken in thinking it's so closely related to [[Peer Review]]...(?) Bah. :) [[User:El C|El_C]] 07:05, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::::: El C - It's a simple and easily observed fact of this discussion that a consensus does not presently exist to merit the proposed change to BCE/CE, or even that BCE/CE is the more neutral of the two terminologies. What's so "convoluted" and "legalistic" about that? [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 19:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::I don't think there's any question that BC/AD is the more common notation and by a long, long way. Indeed BCE/CE just doesn't have any common currency that I've ever seen amongst the general public where I am. Indeed, in the past I was swayed by arguments on its commonality that were proferred here on WP - but when I checked the assertions, found them overstated. On the more general point - where different words/constructions are equally common, on WP we tend to end up using a mixture of the two. This isn't surprising - it's a wiki - everyone's free to edit, and people tend to edit using language styles they prefer and are familiar with. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::One of the problems I have been experiencing throughout much of this discussion, John, is that too many people get (very) emotionally involved, on both sides, and dispassionate exchanges invariably seem to get sidetracked by innuendo and swallowed in textual abyss, as our own discussion right now undoubtedly will. Anyway, if it is decided that the basis for the [[npov]] policy is [[Popular culture|familliarity]] as opposed to [[Peer Review]], so be it. I really, ultimately, could not care less. But this distinction does need to be clearly spelled out, I think. :) [[User:El C|El_C]] 07:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::The NPOV policy is quite clear that all views should be represented but minority views cannot expect ''equal'' representation. Make of that what you will. Most of the arguments here are entirely spurious (my favourite is the ISO 8601 one -- the standard uses the year of the metre, 1875 I think, as its reference point; maybe we should mark dates as BTM and ATM?; my next favourite is "Jesus is not my lord" -- ( I have a delightful picture of extremely delicate Wikipedia editors leaping back in horror at the suggestion that Jesus is lord in history books -- "my God (or no God, of course), these damned (or not damned) authors are extolling the dominion of Jesus the not-Christ". Well, it makes me laugh). GN

This is a response to Nobs, Rangerdude, and Silversmith, although again these points realy are directed to everyone and consider the issue as a whole. Nobs suggests that BCE/CE was developed by Talmud scholars and asks how I feel about it having been hijacked by atheists. Nobs, I think your question suggests a misunderstanding of the issue. Personally, I do not know who first coined the terms BCE and CE, and I do not care. However, ler's say it was Jacob Neusner. It is true that he is a scholar of the Talmud, but whatever his degree of religious observance (I have no idea whether he is shomrei mitzvot &mdash; an observer of the commandments, or an apikoros &mdash; what Orthodox Jews might consider a heretic. What I do know is that he is a critical scholar, meaning he applies the methods of critical history and comparative literature to the study of Jewish texts, which leads him to question those texts' claims about their origins and truthfulness. In other words, I think that his being Jewish is less important than his being a historian or textual critic like Eugene Genovese or Hayden White. As I suggested before, if he were writing from a ''Jewish'' point of view, he would identify this year as 5765, and the year Jesus was born as 3756. But he didn't, because he was not writing from a Jewish point of view but rather from the point of view of a critical scholar as committed (or, in this instance, more committed) to NPOV as (than) us. I have no idea why you use the phrase "hijacked by atheists" for two reasons. First of all, hijacking involves stealing someone's property. But as any Wikipedian should know, ideas are not quite property. We cite other sources all the time, indeed, we are ''supposed'' to cite other sources all the time. So '''of course''' Neusner expects other people to cite him, engage his ideas, and, if people find his arguments compelling, build on them. This is the scholarly enterprise &mndash; don't you agree? (if you don't, why are you involved in writing an encyclopedia?). Second, I have no reason to believe that the other people who use "BCE" and "CE" are atheists or not. I imagine some do not believe in God, and others do believe in God. Ihonestly do not see how it matters. What is at issue is ''not'' whether one believes in God. What ''is'' at issue is whether one believes that ''all human beings'' believe that Jesus is Christ and Lord. And as the New Testement makes clear, the Apostles certainly did not believe that ''all'' people believed that Jesus is Christ and Lord. Why do you believe this? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude takes it upon himself (herself?) to "warn" me against insulting other people. I have not insulted anyone, I have however criticized other people's positions which again is basic to scholarly enterprise. If you can't handle it, go away. If you can handle it, understand that I will criticize your views when I feel they are flawed. You say my premise is flawed: "As you have been shown many times, Wikipedia's NPOV policy says absolutely nothing barring the use of BC/AD and Wikipedia's Style Manual explicitly condones it as one of two acceptable dating systems." I honestly have no idea how you can write this with a straight face. Let us look at your own words: the ''style'' policy allows '''both''' BC/AD and BCE/CE. Fine. But this only means that the ''style'' policy will not help us resolve this debate (see also MPerel's astute and relevant observation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#Policy_vs._Style_Guide]. You are not only saying "AD" is permissible, '''YOU''' are also saying that "CE" is permissible! Your argument supports my view as much as it supports yours. In fact, this policy cannot and will ''never'' decide this issue, since ''as a matter of style'' it sees both systems as acceptable. But not only is your argument flawed; you do not understand my argument. I am NOT criticizing "BC/AD" on the grounds of style. Therefore the style policy is not relevant. I am criticizing it on the grounds of NPOV. Style issues aside, "BC" and "AD" are abbreviations for claims that Jesus is Christ and Lord. That is a point of view held by Christians but not held by others. So it is POV, plain and simple. Conversely, "BCE" and "CE" are ''not'' POV, because they make ''no'' claims about Jesus. They do not say he is Lord, but neither do they say he is not Lord. A devout Christian ''can'' use "BCE" and "CE without feeling that he or she is betraying his or her faith, because using these terms in no way negates their faith. What these terms ''do'' is signal that this dating system is a convention that people use ''even if'' they do not believe Jesus is Christ and Lord. If you do not understand this, I do not need to insult you, you are insulting yourself. In any event, I would think it is clear to everyone here that our NPOV policy is ''far more'' important than a style policy. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith misunderstands the import of El_C's list, because s/he thinks that his/her list of people who use AD/BC is comparable and cancels out El_C's. Again, he/she is mistaken. The lists are comparable only in that they both illustrate that many people use either system. '''But ''no one'' has ever contested the fact that many people use BC/AD''' The ''only'' thing that we contest is that BC/AD violates NPOV policy. The purpose of El_C's list is simply to show that there is an NPOV alternative. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:I don't think that the NPOV policy guidelines aren't the issue here. I'm assuming we all agree that the article, just like any other, should be NPOV. The issue is whether or not the the use of BCE/CE and/or/vs. BC/AD is inherently POV. The answer is: it depends on who's using it and why. Clearly, we all have a POV, and nobody's arguing that we should give it up...but it should NOT influence our writing on wikipedia. Those who say BCE/CE is anti-christian may well be correct. Those who say BC/AD is less "scholarly" may well be correct. The point is, however, that whatever the outcome of this discussion might ultimately be, I think Wikipedia will suffer greatly if we don't come to a CONSENSUS, and AMICABLY. I'm afraid that, however this ends up, one group is going to be annoyed, and one group is going to feel vindicated. I would prefer to see both groups drop their bias, and work together, not to show how everyone else how "smart" or "right" they are, but to IMPROVE THE WIKIPEDIA. I reiterate my point above: it sounds completely moronic to say that Jesus was born 4 to 6 years before he was born, ''i.e.'', "in 4BC" or "as early as 6BC". Let's stick to the relevant issue (improving wikipedia) and stop already with the pointless and unproductive, oblique or overt, ad hominem attacks about who is more or less POV. (and yes, Slrubenstein, you have insulted people in this discussion, whether you meant to or not, but you're far from the only one (not that that makes it OK))... Can't we all just be friends? [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 16:39, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Susvolans, please explain why "Common Era" is POV. And please explain why "Before Christ" and "In the Year of our Lord" is ''not'' POV. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:"Common Era" is just plain stupid. Common? To whom? It's just a circumlocution based in a desire to either obliterate any mention or note of jesus in the dating system used in christendom over the past millennium and a half, or to simply avoid having to say his name everytime you state a date. I still say we should all just go with 5765. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 16:39, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

::I don't think "common" refers to "whom" the date is common. It refers to the common starting point by which years are counted. Common Era maintains the common starting point defined by the widely used Gregorian calendar without using the religious-laden nomenclature. The logic is probably similar to the reasons for the recent cultural change from GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) to UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). Time is still measured from a common point which happens to be based on the time in Greenwich, however the name change reflects the same common starting point for measurement purposes and yet diffuses the preeminence of Greenwich implied in the GMT nomenclature. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 17:01, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Common Era is just plain stupid?" Well Tomer, I guess when you wrote that I was not the only one resorting to insults, you meant yourself. But I don't mind the insulting language. What I do mind is that you either have not read what I wrote, or refuse to respond. I explained why BCE/CE are most definitely ''not'' insulting to Christians or Christianity, and I explained to whom the Common Era is common. Now let me ask you a question: when you say "christendom," what do you mean? DO you mean the world consisting only of all Christians? If so, you are wrong, because many non Christians agree ''by convention'' to call this year 2005. Or by "christendom" do you mean all people who use the Gregorian calendar? If this is what you mean, you are really insulting me and violating NPOV. I am not a Christian and although I call this year 2005 it insults me, and it is inaccurate, to call me a member of Christendom. If you believe that "Christendom" &mdash; the rule of Christianity &ndash; should rule Wikipeida, you have no business here at all. How dare you exclude all non-Christians (or demand that non-Christians accept Christian practices)? What does "Common Era" mean? It means an an era common to many people of many faiths, including Christianity but yes believe it or not including non-Christians too, and refusing to privilege a Christian POV. Why do you think that is stupid? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I assume you are joking when you say we should all use 5765. I agree with you that that is what year we are in. But I recognize that others do not agree. This is the question: can people of different views find common ground or not? This is what Wikipedia's NPOV policy is all about, and this is what the switch to "Common Era" is all about. It really sounds to me like the people who support AD 2005 ''or'' 5765 ''over'' 2005 CE are saying that we pick one view or another, but there can be no neutral view. If you feel that way, how can you commit yourself to Wikipedia? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:31, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Slrubenstein: You express your ideas very well and have an excellent understanding of the issues involved. You and I may be closer to an understanding if we can look at this dispassionately apart from our own personal spiritual preferances. The issue seems to be around an understanding of what the term [[common]] means. A search on CE/BCE finds for the most part, Christian bible schools and Jewish sites that use the term, repsectfully of each other. The Christian bible schools use C.E. to acknowledge it may not be "anno domini" for all members of society; the Jewish use C.E. to acknowledge the rise and dominance (in population numbers) of the gentile church over the past 2 millenia. What is "common" to both is the shared belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, and (God permitting) a respect for each others beliefs. 2005 is not just a random number pulled out of a hat; it represents an historical experience of entire civilizations. Here's the premise: there is a third group now that seeks to change the meaning of the commonality shared by these two faiths. By "common" they really mean [[secular]], denying the very basic premise by which Jews and Christians have achieved a peaceful coexistence. Let's give this group a name just for reference sake, I prefer [[enlightened]] [[rationalist]]s, sounds less radical than [[atheist]] (or the inflamitory [[Satanic]] [[conspiracy]]); nonetheless, while they may share with our Jewish brethren the denial "Jesus is Lord", thier attitude toward the fundemental precepts of Judaism is the same as it is toward Christianity: it's a bunch of hooey & superstition. They are co-opting CE/BCE to further a POV: that belief in God is bullcrap. I return to the fundemental premise, 2005 is not a random number pulled out of a hat. If these enlightened rationalist & truthseekers really want to establish factual truth, why then do they seek to assign the random number 2005 as being the current calender of reckoning, when as everyone knows, it's pure crap. Why don't they state thier real agenda, to make it the year 14,000,000,000 or 20,000,000,000, or thereabouts, to be scientifically and factually accurate. To much work I presume, so they propose continuing the lie and at the same time, in thier enlightened rational thinking, wanna call it factual. What I understand about Judaism has little "in common" with this. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 17:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I appreciate your thoughtful comment. We are closer than I previously thought, though I respectfully disagree with you on some important issues. When you write " A search on CE/BCE finds for the most part, Christian bible schools and Jewish sites that use the term, repsectfully of each other. The Christian bible schools use C.E. to acknowledge it may not be "anno domini" for all members of society; the Jewish use C.E. to acknowledge the rise and dominance (in population numbers) of the gentile church over the past 2 millenia." I agree wholeheartedly with you. But when using "common era," I think that the only thing Jews and Christians have in common is there desire to live together with mutual respect. It is true that Jews and Christians worship the same God, this is something else they have in common &mdash; but I do not think this is the reason for Jews accepting the Gregorian calendar and Christians accepting CE. I think it is as simple as Jews accepting the fact that Christian Europe has set the terms for many global customs, and Christians accepting the fact that however widespread some customs may be, they are now used by and in a way belong to non-Christians. Clearly, one does not have to be of an "Abrahamic" faith to use the Gregorian/CE system -- Hindus can, for example, and do. As far as atheists coopting BCE/CE, Nobs, with all due respect, '''this simply does not matter'''. This is not a chatroom for debating religion or atheism, it is an NPOV encyclopedia. No editor here should care about another editor's beliefs. But we should all care about NPOV. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:Very good; my whole point is this is not a two-sided discussion, it is a three-sided discussion. While Jews and athieists may share "denial of Christ" to put it crassly, Jews and Christians have shared more during the [[C.E.]] than atheists have with either group. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 17:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:: There are other POVs. Frex, some of us, like me, are Buddhists. [[User:Zora|Zora]] 18:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::: What Zora said. :) Only I'm not a Buddhist, but a Muslim. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 18:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::: I don't know if you understand [[Arabic]], but it is my understanding [[Osama bin Laden]] repeatedly uses [[Anno Domini]] system of dating in most of his public pronouncements. perhaps you could aid in research. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 18:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:It is hubris to think that AD is more NPOV than CE. They are both allowed in the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)|Manual of Style]]; ''Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.'' Since they are both allowed you can't say one is more NPOV. However, I would rather it in CE because of uniformity. And no, I am not a Christian. --[[User:Sunborn|The Sunborn]]

::You might want to vote on the subject, up top. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 18:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, nothing about what I said about "Common Era" was meant to be insulting toward you or toward anyone else. I maintain that it's just plain stupid. If you have a lot of stock riding upon its usage, I would say it's probably a good investment, but that the phrase is still stupid. It's not "common", and it's based retroactively on an event whose dating is undeterminable, to say nothing of unverifiable. If people were to say "Christian Era", then I might be less critical, since that's what the dating system is supposed to be indicative of. BCE as "before the christian era" is much less nonsensical than "before the common era", since, as has been pointed out numerous times, and not just by me, there is nothing "common" about "this era". Even saying that cheeses was born in 6 BCE with that meaning, is much less nonsensical than saying he was born 6 years BC. That is, as I have said several times already, the ''only'' reason I'm opposing the use of BC/AD ''in this article''. If you find insulting my saying that the phraseology "Common Era" is just plain stupid, then I would suggest that you're perhaps too emotionally attached, as bizarre as that sounds to me, to this non-issue. Tersely but respectfully yours. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 19:48, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

::AD/BC could be pov or npov as it is more frequently used.

::CE/BCE could also be pov and in some circustances npov. but why introduce it into this article, except to be pov? (or as Tomer says - stupid)? To introduce it would demean the article --[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 19:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand ClemMcGann's statement. How frequently a phrase is used has nothing to do with whether it is POV or NPOV. If you seriously think that frequency of use proves NPOV, you profoundly misunderstand [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|our NPOV policy]] and I urge you to read it carefully. Frequency of use is simply irrelevant to POV/NPOV. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Jguk who earlier reverted my changes has yet to explain why BC and AD conform to our NPOV policy. Moreover, Susvolans has yet to explain whose or what POV "Common Era" expresses (don't say the POV of people who use CE, that is tautological. The reason AD is POV is not because it expresses the point of view of people who use AD, but rather because it express the Christian POV; people who use CE are doing so precisely to be neutral. If you call the Neutral Point of View a "Point of View" and conclude that it thus violates our NPOV policy, your logic is really screwed up. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, I have actually heard some people say that CE means "Christian Era" and I have no objection to that interpretation, which you seem more comfortable with. Nevertheless, I still do not understand why you question "common." "Common" means shared by many people, and indeed many people, including people of different faiths and no faith, share the Gregorian calendar. This seems like a straightforward use of the word "common." The point is, they have the calendar in common, but they do not have belief that Jesus is Christ and Lord in common. Also, I have noticed that you often talk about the Gregorian calendar and the BC/AD system at the same time. I think this is unconstructive, and certainly misses the point of many people who object to AD. As I said, people share the Gregorian calendar (i.e. "2005"), they do not share belief in Jesus as Lord (i.e. "AD). I understand you are saying that the Gregorian calendar is derived from an assumption about Jesus' birth, and an assumption that happens to be wrong to boot. But the same thing can mean very different things in different contexts. For Christians, 2005 may very well mean "2005 years since Jesus' birth." When Jews use "2005" they know that Christians think it is 2005 years since Jesus' birth. But that is not why Jews use "2005." The reason they use "2005" is because it has become a convention shared by (i.e. ''common'' to) many people worldwide. It is a convenience -- rather than have to convert the Jewish year to the Christian year to the Muslim year to the Hindu year whenever different people try to ''commun''icate, it makes sense to pick a convention. There are of course historical reasons for why the Gregorian calendar became the convention rather than the Muslim calendar &mdash; reasons that have more to do with European commercial and military prowess, than with Christianity. Nevertheless, it is a convention, just a convention. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

==James brother of Jesus==

I took out 'James the brother of Jesus' as not all agree that Jesus had a brother.

I took out 'Paul apostle of the gentiles' as it could imply that only Paul preached to gentiles.--[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 19:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:I'm going to add both back in, as the New Testament describes James as Jesus' brother, and Paul was indeed the apostle of the gentiles, that was his unique mission. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 20:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:I have to agree with Jayjg. Not only does the NT say Jesus had a brother named James, it names 4 other brothers of his. And taking out "Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles" is the wrong solution. The solution would be to change it to "Paul, Apostle ''to'' the Gentiles", as that is what he is called, going back as far as the earliest codices of the NT itself. All may not agree that James was Jesus' ''full'' brother, since some, notably the RCC, believe that Mary died a virgin, but even those who make this claim hold that James and Jesus' other brothers were his half-brothers, children of Joseph. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 20:57, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

::Jayjg and Tomer make compelling arguments. If anyone has a problem with them, let me remind people of the NPOV way to handle this (which is ''not'', as ClemMcGann did, to delete them): state "According to (Mark, Tertulian, E.P. Sanders, whatever) Jesus had five brothers, including one named James. However (Tertulian, E.P. Sanders, whomever) argue that this is metaphorical, or refers to ...(whatever)." Ditto with Paul's mission to the Gentiles. "According to X, Paul's mission was to the Gentiles, although Y and Z argue ..." [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 21:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Well, in this case, it would be "according to the [[New Testament]], James was the brother of Jesus". [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 21:14, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::Hey, you know I am not trying to pick a fight or anything. All I meant was, if there are theologians, clerics, or other scholars who interpret these passages differently, there is a way to handle that without deleting anything. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 21:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::The version which I objected to was by [[User:209.78.18.134]] which stated in the intro:

:::<i>His teachings were initially spread by a group of "Twelve Apostles" and the Jerusalem Church led by James the brother of Jesus and by Paul of Tarsus who called himself "Apostle to the Gentiles". (Acts)</i>

:::Further down in the text the brothers/cousins/half-brothers are discussed,and that is the place for them. There was no reason to put it in the intro --[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 23:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

== Proposal ==

I propose - in an effort to end the revert war - since this is an issue for all of Wikipedia and not just this artice, that the original version be maintained until the policy is reviewed and a decision is made to adopt the system of BCE/CE over BC/AD, or not. The article should be left in it's original state until that time, as that is the most common usage, and the most common usage on Wikipedia. There is also no definite consensus either way. Many Wikipedians do not even know this debate is happening as they have no reason to come to this article. You may argue that we don't need to decide either way, like with English vs. American spelling, but I think this talk page clearly shows that we do. This is a complete waste of energy. We are arguing the same points over and over again. This is my proposal, and if agreed upon, there should be no further discussion of the issue here, or reverting of the article. I don't know the best procedure for having such a policy vote, [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|I haven't been here that long]]. I hope someone can come up with a solution. Please address this proposal below. And just to make a point: I would probably vote on Wikipedia adopting the new BCE/CE system, as that seems to be the way the academic world is going. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 21:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

*FWIW, I concur with this approach. Incidentally, it appears several people missed my intention w/ calling for a vote earlier. Specifically, I was trying to point out that the way the discussion was going, we weren't going to reach a consensus. I think that's been pretty thoroughly proven by now. This is something that is going to have to be referred to the overlords of wikipedia and adopted as a wikipedia-wide policy. I, for one, will be happy to go with whatever their decision might be. (In other words, I'm really not that attached to either nomenclature--there are, to me, convincing arguments against using either one of them.) [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 22:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

*There is no "original version" as far as I can tell; the article is in constant flux. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 22:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&oldid=6801342] This is a much earlier version of the article, 14th September 2004, edited by Jayjg, keeping the BC/AD style. The way the policy works with English/American spelling is to keep the original, so that is what I propose here until wiki-wide decisions are made. Jayjg, could you please comment on the voting proposal, not just which version to freeze it at in the meantime, as it really isn't the end of the world if it isn't the one you would prefer. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 22:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::September 14, 2004 is a looong time ago. As for a vote, isn't that what is happening above? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 22:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::Exactly, so for a very long time you and everyone else were fine with it being AD/BC, so I'm sure you can handle it being AD/BC for a little while longer. And as for the vote, the vote above is only for this article, not what I've proposed, and which is to be somewhere more communal as it affects everyone.--[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 23:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::The change was made, and it was a good one; I accepted it. Currently the vote seems to be strongly in favour of the change. And once one recognizes who is reverting to BC/AD, particularly the most persistent reverters, it is a given that the change is more NPOV and logical. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 01:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not see the point to or value of this proposal. Silversmith and Tomer misconstrue Jayjg's point, which really is that all Wikipedia articles are works in progress. Period. Earlier versions have no priority just because they happen to be earlier. Indeed, if you ''really'' believed in the ideals of Wikipedia, which I am beginning to doubt, you (Silversmith and Tomer) would argue that ''the most recent'' versions of articles have priority. This is because the idea of Wikipedia is that over time through the contributions of many articles will improve over time. Moreover, Silversmith and Tomer keep trying to switch the issues. Yes, the ''style'' guidelines (Which as MPerel pointed out are not binding) say that AD and CE are ''equally'' acceptable. "Equally" means that this style policy gives you '''no''' grounds for objecting to CE as a matter of style &mdash; just as it gives us no grounds for objecting to AD ''as a matter of style.'' '''But we are ''not'' objecting to AD ''as a matter of style''.''' We are objecting to it because of a ''whole other different policy'' &mdash; our NPOV policy. NPOV is one of the most, if not the most, important policy we have here and there is ''no question'' that it trumps issues of style (i.e. what may be acceptable or even good style must be deleted if it violates NPOV; what may be poor style is acceptable if it maintains NPOV). Silversmith and Tomer, please stop confusing two different issues. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Actually, I'm trying to uphold NPOV, ''and'' end a revert war, ''and'' end a never ending discussion. It is ridiculous to argue that newer versions should have priority because what is a newer version? That is something more likely to change from one moment to the next. I appreciate your point about newer versions being updated etc. But if there was nothing wrong with the old version (and you've yet to prove there is) then there's nothing wrong with sticking with the old. The guide suggests that if both are fine, then the original should be kept. Both are fine, and your reasons for feeling otherwise are based on your personal POV. If it isn't, then why aren't you out campaigning for a diferent article to change to BCE/CE? Why just this one? What I was suggesting would be to create a uniformity on Wikipedia that is based on logic and NPOV. I'm upset you would suggest that Tomer and I are not upholding the "ideals of Wikipedia" because we are arguing against you. If you argue that NPOV trumps all, you need to figure out how exactly BCE/CE is more NPOV than BC/AD. The whole point behind inventing BCE/CE was POV! Someone decided they didn't like the meaning hidden, not only in an abbreviation, but also in Latin. So they decided to come up with another abbreviation, which '''''they thought''''' would be better. But it doesn't really make a difference because, <small>and I hate to use the term,</small> "at the end of the day" the calender is still based on the birth of christ, and calling it whatever fancy title you like won't change that. We can't please everyone here on Wikipedia, so we should at least try to please the majority, and we all know in this case what the majority use. Those who have voted for BCE/CE in this article, and have said for reasons of academic usage, have not said anything about using BCE/CE across the whole of Wikipedia. Why is that? And before you say that I'm arguing for my POV, you should know, as I said earlier, that I would probably vote BCE/CE for a wiki-wide usage. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 16:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You have no understanding of our NPOV policy. AD is POV, CE is NPOV. I and many others have explained why. It is POV to say Jesus ''is'' Christ. It is NPOV to say that many different groups have a particular calendar in common. To say that the invention of BCE/CE expressed a POV shows that you are ignorant of what we here at Wikipedia mean by POV. "NPOV" is not itself a POV that violates our NPOV policy &mdash; you are just a troll making a mockery of our policies. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 19:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Withdraw that [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack]], Slrubenstein. [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 20:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Please do not call me a troll. Your personal attacks are not necessary. Particularly as I have stated that I would agree to a wiki-wide usage of BCE/CE which is what you are arguing for. When your arguments aren't working, you should still not resort to name calling: it is unwiki. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 20:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith, I am sorry. But what frustrates me is that although I have responded to your statements, you never seem to respond to mine. I have explained why BC/AD is POV (many people do not believe Jesus is Christ). I have given reasons why BCE/CE is NPOV (it makes no claims about religious beliefs, pro or con). I have explained why the fact that people came up with BCE/CE for a reason is not sufficient to make the term POV (our own policy explains why NPOV is not itself a POV). I have explained why ''it does make a difference'' (you are conflating/confusing two things: the Gregorian calendar and the BC/AD terminology; they should be treated seperately. I, like most non-Christians, can accept the Gregorian calendar as a convention because we accept that ''some'' people do think Jesus was Christ and his birth was important. But that does not mean we should, in addition, be required to say Jesus is ''our'' Lord). I have made these points several times; others have made similar points. And you keep ignoring them. That is disheartening. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:Thank you for your apology. And I am sorry to have been such a frustration to you. What is dificult in this whole debate is that it has come down to a lot of personal views. I have read your arguments, but I have also read the arguments of those who disagree with you. I think there are valid points on both sides. All I ended up trying to argue was for an end to the revert war, and making a decision to end this time consuming debate. That finally seems to have happened, with the article mentioning both. I still feel the issue needs to be addressed as to the style being used across wikipedia. But that is for another day. And just one more point: AD means "year of the lord" not "our lord". Or do you disagree? --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 15:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

== Major proposal ==

I propose that:

#Wikipedia's stance regarding AD/CE be the same as the stance on UK/US spellings (accept either; don't revert between them) and this should be hard policy, not a guideline.

#In the preferences, users should be able to choose between one system or the other in exactly the same way as we can currently choose between other aspects of date format ([[1 September|1 September]] vs. [[September 1|September 1]]).

[[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 01:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Sounds like a great proposal...(note I'm not saying I'm in favor of it or not) ... but this is not the place to <s>propose</s> <insert>make</insert> wikipedia-wide <insert>policy</insert> proposals. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 01:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

This is a fine proposal ''if'' we are talking ''only'' about matters of ''style.'' If we are talking about our NPOV policy (which is far more important than our style conventions), it is a terrible proposal. NPOV by its very nature is not about US versus UK standards, it is about ''neutrality''. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

===Accusations of ballot stuffing===

::I propose that we wait for the vote to conclude; fascinating how this proposal appeared just as the tide appeared to be turning in one direction. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 01:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Fascinating that the "tide appeared to be turning" (i.e. there are several CE votes that have popped up) after Jayjg attempted to, let's say, stuff the ballot box by writing to as many Jewish editors as possible. Futhermore, the first part of the proposal has been my position from the start. Jayjg, try, just try, to assume good faith, and, more importantly, act in good faith. Just try. [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 01:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::I beg your pardon?! You tell Jayjg to assume good faith after you assume "bad faith" on his part? [[Chutzpah]]! [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 02:12, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

:::::It's no assumption of bad faith, Tomer. What Chameleon alleged against Jayjg happened. See my last post for the links. Jayjg posted a message to all his friends asking them to come vote here to skew the outcome in his favor. While I don't mind those other editors participating if they actually have something to contribute to the discussion, it does bother me that somebody is campaigning behind the scenes to tilt the vote in his favor by drawing in participants who have not followed the debate here and do little more than cast the vote he wants from them and leave. Previously, all the votes appear to have come voluntarily from the VfD note and from people who were already here. Now about a third of the votes in favor of the change were privately recruited in a manner that was intended for nobody here to notice even though its purpose was to alter the outcome of the vote. That type of behavior is generally disrespectful of the notion of consensus, which Wikipedia policy says should guide our decision. I added a link on the survey announcements site to draw greater attention to this vote and hopefully get a broader sample of wikipedians now that one editor has sought to skew the vote's participation by pinging all his friends. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 04:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::Actually, what you and Chameleon alleged didn't happen. I didn't post "a message to all his friends asking them to come vote here to skew the outcome in his favor"; many are not my friends at all, merely people I think would be interested. Some are my friends, some I barely know, some I mostly edit-war with, some came without any prompting on my part. See my comment below responding to your spurious charge. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 05:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::And I hope some of those people you invited to the discussion actually do show up. At least they have a record of thoughtful discussion on matters instead of descending to personal attacks. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 05:19, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

:::::As is typical. Don't get worked up, he's not worth it. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 03:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::: fascinating how 2 dozen people rewrite 2000 years of human experience in 24 hours. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 01:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Nothing has been re-written; a more neutral usage has come into currency. [[Strawman]] arguments are sadly typical of the arguments made in favor of this outdated and non-neutral form. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 01:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon - You state that the tide appeared to be turning '''"after Jayjg attempted to, let's say, stuff the ballot box."''' Would this be the vote recruitment you are referring to? See [[User_talk:Leifern|here]], [[User_talk:Fintor|here]], [[User_talk:Msh210|here]], [[User_talk:Ambi|here]], [[User_talk:Sunborn|here]], [[User_talk:Fivetrees|here]], [[User_talk:MathKnight|here]], [[User_talk:Jmabel|here]], [[User_talk:PhatJew|here]], and [[User_talk:Jpgordon|here]]. IOW, somebody didn't like the way the vote was going among people who came here to participate on their own so he rounded up all his friends to invade the discussion. I did think it was odd that after two days of evenly split voting, all of a sudden a bunch of editors who never participated in this discussion suddenly showed up, cast a quick vote in favor of Jayjg's position, and then departed. Now I know why. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 04:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:What's wrong with asking other people to participate? I came here by an invitation by another editor to comment as well. And btw, only two of the editors you listed have even come to the page to participate...hardly ballot stuffing, especially since no one is being told how to comment or vote. The broader the participation, the better. It's more likely the many people who have come lately are responding to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment&diff=prev&oldid=13441201 RFC] Slrubenstein posted. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 04:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::There's nothing wrong with seeking wider participation per se, but secretly pinging a dozen or so of your friends to come vote in favor of your position and then pretending that the tide of the vote had shifted on its own is deceptive. When Chameleon made his proposal above, Jayjg responded to it by attacking Chameleon's motives and suggesting that he offered the compromise in response to the shift in votes towards BCE/CE as if it had happened naturally. In reality, as we now know, almost every single one of the last 1/3rd or so votes in favor of BCE/CE was quietly recruited by Jayjg, who made no indication or disclosure that he was campaigning elsewhere for votes. And no, the recent votes are not from the RfC's. Click on the links I gave you and you will find that they link to several names who have cast subsequently cast votes for his position in the last couple hours. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Rangerdude, Which third of the votes in favor of BCE/CE were "quietly recruited by Jayjg"? I see two people who actually showed up (and one of those two had already been commenting on this talk page before Jayjg commented on their talk page) and they weren't "pinged" nor advised how to comment or vote, they were merely openly invited via their talk pages to participate. Do you have anything compelling to add concerning why BC/AD should be in this article, or is this the direction you are taking now, ad hominem attacks on editors who don't hold your position? --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 05:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

:::Posting on someone's Talk: page is hardly "secret"; in fact, it's just the opposite. As for them being all being my "friends", another falsehood. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 05:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:I brought the issue to the attention of people who I thought would have an interest. Turns out I was right, some did, though most of the people I contacted haven't voted. They're not all my "friends"; some I barely know, and with others I've mostly been involved in edit wars or Talk: disagreements. Oh, by the way, at least one of the people on your list had commented on the issue before I ever contacted him, and others I never contacted and are no doubt responding to the RfC on this issue. Anyway, people ask other interested editors to take a look at stuff all the time; you can do the same if you like, that's hardly ballot-stuffing. All of the people I contacted are long-time editors whose opinions on this matter are as valid as any of the pro BC/AD voters; actually, more valid than many, since they don't use rationales referring to the "anti-Christ" or "revisionist history" or claiming CE is "just plain stupid" etc. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 04:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Well hey. I'm the one who called B/CE "just plain stupid", eventhough I also said it's moronic to say that Jesus was born 4-6 years before he was born. And I also happen to hold to the "revisionist history" thing. That notwithstanding, I voted in my straw poll to use BCE/CE simply because it sounds dumb to say Jesus was born before the beginning of the calendar system based upon the supposèd date of his presumed birth. I notice tho, that nobody's bothered to list me as Jayjg's "friend" yet...[[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 06:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::::Maybe you're my sockpuppet; that's even closer than friends. ;-) [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 06:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::Oh my yes. I can see the headlines now. SOCKPUPPETS OF THE JEWNIVERSE JEWNITE!!! Bleh. I'm going to bed. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 08:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::...and yet curiously almost all the people you pinged showed up to cast largely unelaborated votes in favor of your position then departed as quickly as they came. Whatever the case, it cannot be denied that you were campaigning for votes. I can't stop you from doing that but I can point out that you did it and I can make note that your observation about the tide of the vote changing was no chance event from the RfC. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 05:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::"Almost all"? Count again. I looked at your list, and only one person on it appears to have come here after I "pinged" him. A second, Sunborn, had already commented against the proposal, and I went to his page and suggested that if he felt that way he should vote. That's it. One whole person. This is your amazing "ballot box stuffing" conspiracy? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 05:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

*:::Actually, I count '''3 votes''' that happened after you contacted them: [[User:Leifern|Leifern]], [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] and [[User:Sunborn|Sunborn]]. Note that Sunborn's contributions only show edits to this article ''after'' your contacting at 18.45pm. Of the others, 5 haven't voted yet, but still may, and the last 2 decided they weren't interested. [[User:MathKnight|MathKnight]] wrote: "Honsestly, I don't see the difference between BC\AD to BCE\CE, since they both refer to the Christian dating system." And [[User:Msh210|Msh210]] was the other who wasn't interested. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 12:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::I count [[User:Leifern]], [[User:Ambi]], and [[User:Sunborn]] among the pings I uncovered. In addition to that he also contacted [[User:Eliezer]] [[User_talk:Eliezer|here]] and [[User:Kuratowski's Ghost]] [[User_talk:Kuratowski%27s_Ghost|here]] to solicit votes on this discussion. That makes a total of at least '''5 separate votes''' that Jayjg has recruited here. A quick review of his history also indicates that he has communicated in the last day or so on other subjects (including apparent vote recruitment on another article) with [[User:Viriditas]], [[User:Humus sapiens]], and [[User:SlimVirgin]], all of whom have curiously chimed in here to vote for his position in the last 24 hours. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence, right? Just like the fact that virtually everybody he's pinged so far coincidentally voted in favor of his position? In short, not only did Jayjg initiate a behind the scenes campaign to swing the vote in his favor. Now he's also fibbing when he claims that his ballot box stuffing effort only netted one vote. Right now it's at least 5 and counting. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 16:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::Sunborn commented before '''I''' responded to '''his''' statement that he preferred BCE/CE; you've been told this a number of times, and even shown a diff. If you can't be honest about at least this, then your position is clear. As for Ambi her vote came '''after''' the ballot-stuffing accusations. You claimed a third of the BCE/CE votes came from "ballot-stuffing" when, at the time, only '''one''' vote was from a person I had contacted; it's quite clear that '''you''' were the one '''fibbing''' at the time, as you still are. Please read MPerel's comments below for diffs, and try to refrain from further false accusations. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Whether they came after the evidence of your vote recruitment emerged or not is irrelevant because the editors came here on a direct request from you. If you want to discard Sunborn from the list, fine by me as well. That STILL leaves you with 4 times as many recruited votes from what you previously admitted, and maybe more considering the unusually coincidental back-to-back arrivals of three other editors you apparently recruited to the talk pages on other issues within the last 24 hours. As for "false accusations," the only one of those I see to date is your original comment that started this whole dispute to the effect of impugning Chameleon's motives for proposing a compromise. You accused him of responding to a shift in the vote that you tried to rig in your favor without disclosing the fact that several of its "new" participants were hand recruited by you to vote here, all of them casting a ballot in your favor (which I'm sure was just coincidence, was it not?). What myself and others have said about your vote recruitment has been fully documented from your own posting history, and if you don't like us doing that, that's just tough. Perhaps next time you'll think twice before pulling a stunt like that or disclose your activities in good faith before somebody comes along and finds the evidence of it on your posting history. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 16:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::Hello? At the time you made the claim, and I responded, there was exactly '''one''' person who responded, and you still refuse to acknowledge that. The fact that others have responded hours later are irrelevant to your original false claims, which you continue to try to defend. And asking other potentially interested parties to comment on the subject is not "vote recruitment", but in fact what Wikipedia considers a good thing. Your calumnies are exposed, whether you like it or not. Perhaps next time you'll think twice before pulling a stunt like that or confess your falsehoods and hypocrisy in good faith before somebody comes along and finds the evidence of it on your posting history. You add no value here, I am done with you. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Some people frown on it, Jay. I've seen it expressed that it shouldn't be permitted. And ballot-stuffing is often done by email and other means. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 06:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::Frown on what, getting more people involved in the discussion so we can get a fuller picture of the Wikipedia consensus? That's what Wikipedia is all about. As for "other means", sounds very mysterious and conspiratorial. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::Yes, some people frown on spamming talkpages to gain votes for your side. See the discussion on GRider's Schoolwatch thing and the discussion on the autofellatio picture, where an editor did precisely what you have done. I don't agree with those who dislike campaigning. I agree with you that trying to round up support is fine if it's openly done. There is nothing conspiratorial about "other means", Jay. I take it you know how to write an email. I don't have a problem with that either. If an editor with a concern about an article were to email me, I would look at the article. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 23:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Silversmith, Ambi for example came *after* all the wild accusations of "ballot stuffing" (and good, she's a very respected editor with a record of thoughtful feedback), and Sunborn [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=13519886&oldid=13519239 contributed on this page] at 18:24 *before* Jayjg responded to him/her both on this page and his/her talk page. And the ambivalence of MathKnight demonstrates exactly the point, that just because someone is invited to participate guarantees no certain outcome, it only increases participation. What I do find disconcerting is comments on this talk page and the user talk pages of Rangerdude and Nobs demonstrating the personal stake in the Christian POV rather than concern for NPOV, and the mischaracterization and personal attacks of editors who hold other positions than theirs [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARangerdude&diff=13545532&oldid=13544477] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANobs&diff=13545414&oldid=13544336]. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 15:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

*::::::All your link to Sunborn's contribution to this page shows that it was at 20.24/8.24pm, not 18.24/6.24pm. Jayjg contacted Sunborn at 6.45, which is over an hour before Sunborn's first contribution, as I said. And it doesn't matter if a vote came along after the "ballot stuffing" accusations started flying. All I concede from that is that when Jayjg said one, there probably was only one. Now there are 5 and still more may join in. But who cares anyway, as this whole vote will achieve nothing anyway. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Silversmith, recheck your chronology:<br>:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=13519886&oldid=13519239 18:24 Sunborn initial comment at Talk:Jesus]<br>:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus&diff=next&oldid=13519886 18:42 Jayjg response to Sunborn at Talk:Jesus]<br>:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASunborn&diff=next&oldid=13519990 18:45 Jayjg reiterates response to Sunborn at User Talk:Sunborn]<br>--[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 18:01, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::If your buddies want to contribute to the discussion, fine by me. Just don't make personal attacks on other editors for proposing a compromise on the basis of a vote that you were heavily campaigning for behind the scenes. Based on your comments to Chameleon, you insinuated that he was somehow shunning a vote that just happened to have an influx of voters for one side in the last few hours. In reality that influx of votes was hand-recruited by you. Don't complain to me that you got caught. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::"My buddies"? Re-read my post to you. And my post to Chameleon in no way insinuated that there "just happened to have an influx of voters for one side in the last few hours". The only thing this episode has "caught" is a rash of false accusations by you. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 05:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

* 2nd idea is interesting, if practical. But re 1st idea: (& finally someone has almost made the policy repeatedly referred to slightly clearer) - nobody has been arguing that American or English spelling is less POV. There is a claim, with growing support, however, that [[Common Era]] is more NPOV than [[Anno Domini|In the Year of our Lord Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 01:42, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

**Others find CE to be politically correct, euphemistic, axe-grinding POV. They find that using the term that everybody knows is NPOV. Also, ''Anno Domini'' means just "In the year of the Lord", and nothing more. Not "our" lord or anything else. It is perfectly possible to understand it as "in the year of the lord of the Christians" and not worry one's head about it further, as we do with [[Moon Goddess]] Day, [[Tiw]]'s Day, [[Woden]]'s Day, [[Thor]]'s Day, [[Frige]]'s Day, [[Saturn]]'s Day and [[Sun God]]'s Day.

***Its meaning & its translation are not equivalent, as it is years reckoned by supposed birth of Jesus Christ, who is called "Lord" - anyway, I think the 2nd idea is just fabulous - and it lets wikipedia off the hook from receiving hate mail claiming "discrimination against Xians" too. The pages themselves could be named either "4 BC" or "4 BCE" or "4 BC - 4 BCE" but the title on the page could use both. Still either one or both of 4 BC & 4 BCE would need to redirect -- increasing the load on servers to handle redirects. Maybe wikipedia will have to decide after all. I do not have the same problem naming days of week after planets (& sun & moon) - even if they are in a different language that has a touch of Norse mythology. Hardly anyone is trying to make a case that the laws given by Norse gods should govern the Earth. Furthermore, the initial user's spelling is overridden by appropriateness (Articles about America use American spelling...) --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 03:17, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

**Let's accept that there are strong feeling on both sides, and just tolerate both forms. The first part of my proposal is pretty much policy already. It just needs some teeth added. The second part just requires a developer to do a little bit of work. It seems the ideal solution to me. [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 01:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Who says this isn't and educational exercise. It's possible 10 billion human souls have walked the face of this planet over the past two millenia. I had no idea they were so ignorant until a wiki poll set the matter straight in a vote 20-13. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 01:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Look up "[[disingenuous]]"... [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 02:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon and Rangerdude are being very unfair to Jayjg. As far as I know, it was '''I''' who first solicited the particpation of others, many others, not Jayjg (just go to my page and look at "contributions" for May 8th, when I posted an RfC and also solicited several individuals. Moreover, the charge of "ballot stuffing" is ridiculous, especially at Wikipedia where people who might have knowledge about or interest in an article are ''supposed'' to get involved. And when I recruited people to participate, there was no vote and I did not ask anyone to vote any particular way. I also resent Chameleon's vague anti-Semitism. To bring race in when we are trying to discuss neutrality is utterly uncalled for. In any event, many of the people I contacted are not Jewish, or at least I have no reason to think they are Jewish (e.g. John Kenney, Jayjg, and Mustafaa). And another thing, some of the people I invited to participate were or are vigorously opposed to my own view: I left a message on Tomer's talk page and it is obvious that he and I are entirely opposed; I also invited MPerel, and although he has since changed his mind, at the time he was opposed to my view. Jayjg and JimWae (both of whom I notified) and I happen to agree on this matter, but there are many examples in the recent past where they and I vigorously disagreed. What I value is open and intelligent discussion. On the other hand, Chameleon and Rangerdude's complaints are unfounded, signs of intellectual bankrupcy or cowardice (because it doesn't matter how many people disagree with you, what matters is ''their reasons'' and the ability and requirement that all of us have a rational conversation about the issues; if you think many people oppose your point of view, try using reason to change their minds! Or try to take their own arguments seriously!), and diversionary. Let's stick to the issue rather than try to assasinate Jayjg's character. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Withdraw that [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack]], Slrubenstein. [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 20:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Exactly. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 15:44, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

:And especially ironic, in light of Rangerdude's comment just the day before: "Furthermore, your penchant for insulting and attacking the person of people who disagree with you is also growing tiresome and has no place on this forum."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=13492460&oldid=13492262] But then, it's part of a pattern, as others have noted here:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=13461190&oldid=13460988] [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Considering that this entire dispute was initiated by your personal attack on the motives of [[User:Chameleon]], hypocrisy is a better description and that hypocrisy belongs solely to you. As to what I've said, it's all documented above and on your posting history. You just don't like the fact that I've aired your dirty laundry and thrown a wrench in your little behind-the-scenes vote recruitment scheme. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 16:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::No, it was started by your false accusations about me, which you still have not acknowledged, much less retracted, as is all documented above. Are you still claiming I contacted Sunborn before he spoke out in favour of BCE/CE? Well, it doesn't really matter much: Your personal attacks, prevarications, and calumnies grow tiresome; have you nothing else to contribute to this Talk: page? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:56, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Whatever. I suppose your only response now is to fib about what you did and attack the messengers who pointed it out. Too bad for you, the evidence is all there for anybody who wants to see it. The fact that you've gotten yourself so worked up over my posts drawing attention to your posting history is testament in itself to exactly what I've said about you. All anybody needs to do is go [[User_talk:Leifern|here]], [[User_talk:Fintor|here]], [[User_talk:Msh210|here]], [[User_talk:Ambi|here]], [[User_talk:Sunborn|here]], [[User_talk:Fivetrees|here]], [[User_talk:MathKnight|here]], [[User_talk:Jmabel|here]], [[User_talk:PhatJew|here]], [[User_talk:Jpgordon|here]], [[User_talk:Eliezer|here]], and [[User_talk:Kuratowski%27s_Ghost|here]]. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 17:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::As one of the people contacted, I'd like to point out that a) Jayg doesn't know anything about my religious convictions; b) did not encourage me to vote one way or the other; c) will from time to time ask for me to weigh in a contentious editing issue, and I have no idea whether he agrees with my insights - he never says one way or the other. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 17:14, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

:::::Whatever the case, it's still vote recruitment. Furthermore, given that he apparently makes requests such as this one of you on many other topics per your admission, it is silly to suggest that he does not have at least some idea which way your editing preferences and beliefs tilt. As I noted previously, '''every single one of Jayjg's recruited votes that participated has cast a vote in support of BCE/CE'''. Seeing as the remaining votes, which came from an RfC (and thus were a reasonably random sampling of wikipedians as a community at large), split almost evenly between the two sides, that all of Jayjg's recruited voters would come down in his favor is highly uncharacteristic of the non-bias that is now claimed among them.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 17:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::Rangerdude, these continued hysterics and re-repeating your false allegations do nothing for your credibility nor the discussion on BC/BCE. Do you have anything pertinent to say that actually makes a case for BC over BCE? --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 17:08, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::::::To begin with, claiming that letting people know about a potentially interesting discussion is "ballot stuffing" is bizarre at best. But then to compound the issue by claiming that, because of the 23 people voting for BCE/CE four were first contacted by me, we have "evidence" of "ballot stuffing" goes beyond bizarre into the realm of pathological. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 17:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::MPerel - if my allegations are "false" as you claim, then why can you find evidence of each and every one of them [[User_talk:Leifern|here]], [[User_talk:Fintor|here]], [[User_talk:Msh210|here]], [[User_talk:Ambi|here]], [[User_talk:Sunborn|here]], [[User_talk:Fivetrees|here]], [[User_talk:MathKnight|here]], [[User_talk:Jmabel|here]], [[User_talk:PhatJew|here]], [[User_talk:Jpgordon|here]], [[User_talk:Eliezer|here]], and [[User_talk:Kuratowski%27s_Ghost|here]]? That's the great thing about wikipedia - it keeps a record of everything that happened, meaning people who come along later and deny their own actions can be plainly contradicted by the record of them. Like it or not, Jayjg engaged in widespread behind the scenes vote recruitment to stuff the ballot box in his favor. His actions have netted the BCE/CE side at least 5 or more votes that they otherwise would not have had if participation came only from editors who clicked on the RfC on their own. And like it or not, this entire spat was initiated not by me but rather by Jayjg, who used the results of his vote recruitment scheme to make an unprovoked personal attack on another editor's motives. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 17:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Rangerdude, it's apparent you're ignoring any response I or anyone else makes, you just keep repeating yourself. So what, there's a record of Jayjg inviting people to participate. There's nothing wrong with inviting other editors to participate. That's the point of Wikipedia, it's a multi-effort. If you look at the talk pages of any serious editor, you'll see lots of editors inviting involvement by others. Maybe if your contribution to discussions revolved more around article content and less on disrupting discussions by resorting to personal attacks, you'd be getting these kinds of invitations to participate on articles yourself. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 17:36, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::::::::I agree with you, MPerel, but some people do not like this sort of thing. You must know that because I think you have read the arguments over it before -- didn't IZAK do something that garnered some criticism? In any case, GRider was criticised for placing messages about his schoolwatch page on talkpages, and an editor -- User:Achilles I think his name was -- did something similar in connection with an image of autofellatio. In each case, the editors, I believe, could argue that they didn't solicit votes, only the participation of interested editors, but they also were accused of only asking editors they believed would vote their way to participate. In any case, directing editors to a vote is not the same thing as directing them to an article that might interest them. I think that that's fair enough to note. I think votes are perverse anyway -- means to stymie conversation, not bring about consensus. I don't think they should be encouraged, especially where those encouraging them can be certain they will not in fact bring about consensus. All this vote has done is stir up further acrimony. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 23:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::Grace, I have similar feelings you express about voting in general at Wikipedia. Ideally it should be a temperature gauge to measure where the progress toward achieving consensus is holding, but in reality votes often only create polarized partisan sides digging in their heels. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 01:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Ballot-stuffing refers to people voting more than once, or votes cast by non-living people. This is not the case here; each vote is by a real editor, and no one has voted twice. Rangerdude simply cannot stand being in the minority. And he is in the minority. It does not matter how or why various people voted because ''every wikipedian'' has a right to express their view. Rangerdude, stop &mdash; and before you say anything else, '''please''' go through our policies and tell us which policy Jayjg has violated. If he has not violated any policy, he cannot be faulted for what he (or I) did. Tell us what policy we have violated. Please provide a link to that policy too. Thank you. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Agreed. Enough mudslinging. Show us the policy violation. Ballot-stuffing is very different from campaigning. That said, Rangerdude, I didn't see anyone campaigning for a vote, until ''I'' called for one, and it certainly wasn't at Jayjg's urging, it was, as I've said, a way of demonstrating that we're not going to reach consensus one way or another on B/CE vs BC/AD by arguing with each other. We all pretty clearly have our own POVs on this, even those who are ambivalent like me, and no amount of evidence gathering is going to bring consensus, all it's going to do is make people get defensive...something that has quite clearly happened. Recently, in fact, NONE of the discussion here has had anything remotely to do with the issue at hand. Half of this talk page should be archived under Talk:Pointless_discussions rather than under Talk:Jesus. Get back to the subject at hand or sit down and shut up. If you have a gripe against another editor, TAKE IT UP WITH THE WIKISYSTEMLORDS. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 18:23, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::I'll tell you exactly which policy he violated. He did not assume good faith when he made an uprovoked attack on [[User:Chameleon]]'s compromise proposal on the basis that the "tide" was turning in the vote. In doing so, he made the exploration of why that tide was turning fair game. That is where the policy violation occurred and it was duly noted at the time. Now, WRT the ballot box stuffing, Chameleon, Silversmith, and myself investigated the reasons why the votes drastically changed from an even split and found an undisclosed behind-the-scenes vote recruitment campaign by Jayjg to sway the outcome in his favor. '''As I have repeatedly stated''', I cannot stop him from doing this nor does policy permit me or anyone to discard the votes he recruited. I can however document it and criticize it as underhanded and bad form for an open discussion. So while not strictly illegal by wikipedia policy, what he did was impolite and deceptive given that his campaign was not disclosed even while he was touting the outcome of it to make personal attacks on another editor's proposals. The truly telling thing about this entire spat is that Jayjg and his defenders have responded to the evidence that has been documented by backtracking, denial, launching [[ad hominems]] against the messengers, and even lying (such as Jayjg's claim that his campaign produced only 1 vote when in fact it produced at least 4 and very likely more than that). But the one thing none of them can do is refute the fact that it happened. While we do need to get back on track and I'm perfectly willing to see just that happen, this incident is worthy of note because it pertains directly to an ongoing vote on this subject and the manner in which it is being conducted. The lesson from it is that if you're gonna campaign for a vote, disclose it and be upfront about it. And if you're gonna attack the motives of other editors for suggesting a compromise, make sure your own closet is clear of skeletons - especially when you're using the outcome of one of them to make that attack. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 19:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude is just a troll making a mockery of our policies. There is no policy against campaigning (if that is what Jayjg actually did) and all RD is saying is that anything someone does that RD doesn't like is "lack of good faith" is absurd on its face. Listen to Tomer's good points rather than continue to get more and more hysterical. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 19:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

===Bring your gods, ghosts, familliars, aviators and guppies===

And bring also anyone who likely to participate constructively. I extend this advice to every single individual here, and I don't mean anyone especially, though especially Rangerdude. Let the "invasion" begin. From someone whom SlR contacted and did not arrive here independently, [[User:El C|El_C]] 10:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

Okay. Let's do the date thing the NPOV way. The policy says "represent all views". So represent all views. 6 BC/BCE. AD 4 CE. What's the problem? We don't have to choose. Include both. We've established that "BC" is considered biased by some editors and that "BCE" is considered anti-Christian by some, so clearly there is no term that is acceptable to both (unless we date the year from the invention of the metre ;-)), so why not just use both? Problem solved. You may now return to your pointless debate about it. GN [[User:203.103.60.206]] Sig added by --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 01:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:'''100% STRONG AGREE!''' This page has been on my watchlist for a while now, but I've managed to keep my mouth shut... I had this very idea, but looks like you beat me to posting it. [[User:Linuxbeak|Linuxbeak]] 03:11, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

This would be confusing - it would also make each year look like a vacuum cleaner model, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 05:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I find your attitude utterly intolerant. You can plainly see that there is a lot of strong feeling about the dates thing. You cannot claim you are sparing the ignorant, because I have proposed including both sets of dates, so that all can understand them. So basically you are saying ''my way or nothing''. Even JimWae, a staunch supporter of a switch to CE, is willing to give it a go. I know that Jayjg is online too, and he's not afraid to revert what he doesn't like! Why not give it a think? If everyone can just swallow it, we have resolved the problem and can all move on to ''creating content''. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 06:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:I think for this article, the combo BC/BCE is an acceptable compromise. I've seen it done like that before even in scholarly contexts. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 06:27, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with silversmith. <big>'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]'''''</big> 12:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone ever provided a rational explanation for why BCE and CE are "anti-Christian?" Nobs, above argued that it is not, and gave reasons. I've yet to see reasons for why BCE is "anti-Christian." This is tantamount to saying "NPOV is anti-Christian." Our NPOV policy requires us to say things like ''some people'' believe that Jesus is Christ &mdash; but not everyone! Is this anti-Christian? If not, why is saying BCE, which only means that many people do not believe Jesus is Christ, anti-Christian? It doesn't make sense to me. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:This is proving to be an interesting discussion. BCE/CE has become essentially a [[homonym]]. It originally was developed by Christians & Jews entirely for the purpose of being NPOV. It has now been hijacked by [[atheists]] to promote their POV. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 15:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Um...Nobs...I think you mean [[synonym]]ous, not [[homonym]]ous. A homonym, in case you don't want to look it up, is more than one word, spelled the same way. The classic example of this is "bow" (the kind you shoot arrows with) vs. "bow" (what the japanese do before people they respect). This should not be confused with homo''phone'', which pits "bow" (what the japanese do before people they respect) vs. "bough", a branch of a tree. More common homonyms in LModE include such verb/noun pairs as present/present. Synonyms, on the other hand, are different words (or, in this case, acronyms, which I'm not going to explain), which mean the same thing. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 06:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

:::Oh dear. Perhaps you are not aware that "homophones" ''are'' "homonyms". What you describe are "homographs", the less commonly described type of homonym. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 07:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:::: [[Synonyms]], according to wiki, have the same meaning but are spelled different. [[Homonyms]] are spelled alike but have different meanings (like [[bitch]], ''n.a female dog'' and [[bitch]], ''v. to complain''). [[Common]] is a homonym, means [[shared]] and also [[vulgar]]. [[Judeo-Christian]] usage of BCE/BC is [[shared]] belief in a common diety. [[Atheist]]s and so-called [[rationalist]]s usage of BCE/CE shares nothing with theists. It is their POV of denying the [[Christian]] [[Lord]] and a declaration of a [[Novus Ordo Seclorum]], or New secular age. ''[[Secular]]'', i.e. not [[sacred]], or [[vulgar]]. I repeat once again, Jews shared belief in God with Chrisitians was the basis of the compromise language that originted BCE/CE among Christian and Jewish scholars as NPOV. Their shared beliefs and experience over 2 millenium have nothing in common with secular atheists. While the Jews do share the denial that "Jesus is Lord" with atheists, that is not the meaning Christians and Jews, who developed the term, attached to it. The atheist/rationalist argument that [[Anno Domini]] should be dropped, yet time reckoning from the [[Time of Christ]] should continue, is disingenuous in the least. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] Subsribed and sworn before me on this 12 May in the [[Anno Domini| Year of our Lord]] 2005 at 21:29 (UTC)

I do not see the "hijacking." The words "Common Era" or "Before Common Era" in no way imply that God does not exist. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:So, do the terms "Christian Era" and "Before Christian Era" imply that God exists? Note that these are also fairly common usage. To me, it is also an indication of the silliness of the whole argument. For example, in ''[[Webster's Third New International Dictionary]]'', the entry for "common era" is only a cross-reference:

:*'''common era''' ''n, usu cap C & E'' ''':''' <small>CHRISTIAN ERA</small>

: Wouldn't it just be simpler to invent new interpretations of the words represented by BC and AD as well? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not God exists has never been an issue here. I do not think that even "Christian Era" takes the Christian POV, it simply admits that it is an era in Western history dominated by Christianity, which I accept as a fact. As for creating new meanings for old abbreviations, I suppose it is possible, but when people ave been using "BCE and CE" for at least a hundred years, I don't see the point in banishing them from this article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 18:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

== What is NPOV? Know the reader ==

NPOV means that, for reporting purposes, we accept the societal norms that we are in. We use the most common terms as understood and used by our audience. Here our audience is anyone who might be searching for information in a web-based English language encyclopaedia. And it is clear what the norms are here. The overwhelming majority (90%+) of that audience use BC/AD in preference to BCE/CE. Based on that overwhelming majority, BC/AD is what we should use - to do anything else begs "WHY?" And you can't answer that without telling me your POV.

Note that in a different scenario, you would come to a different conclusion about the same issue. Suppose we had a journal written by academics for academics from various university departments where BCE/CE was overwhelmingly prevalent - so much so that the journal's style guide prefers that notation. What sort of message would it present if you persisted in writing to that journal, submitting letters, etc. using BC/AD style. Why would you be breaking the norms? What message are you trying to give? What's your POV?

But the point here is that BC/AD notation is what our readers (and our writers) prefer. By a long shot. There's no contest.

I appreciate that some contributors are more used to BCE/CE than BC/AD - but they form a small minority of our readership. I ask them to accept societal norms here. There is no reason not to.

There are a number of side-effects to the principle of using most common terms - they make the reader comfortable with the style, and if the style is welcoming and familiar, they are more likely to stay. Ask me why I read ''The Times'' rather than ''The Daily Telegraph'', ''The Independent'' or ''The Guardian'' - and it is purely a question of my preferring its style. The same is true of online encyclopaedias. If you are unsure - next ask yourself this. If WP had adopted a strong policy of only allowing American English (swap for British English if you are American!) and rigorously enforced a style guide, so that we made arbitrary changes to contributions to comply with it - do you really think WP would have the breadth of coverage and contributors that it currently does?

Style is important - as is conforming to societal norms (if we are to have a NPOV encyclopaedia). In this instance, there is no alternative - NPOV is non-negotiable and not susceptible to a vote. We must use the forms preferred overwhelmingly by 90%+ of our readership. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 05:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Since when did more common usage become "NPOV"? I've read your comment, and I'm not getting the connection. Does this understanding of NPOV also require us to change all references to [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] to "Mormons"? If so, we've got a lot of work ahead of us. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 06:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Ideally, yes. When we do not reflect most common usage there is usually a POV reason why - in that particular case it is the pro-Latter-day Saints (or pro-Mormon) PC lobby. Surely to be NPOV we should be neither pro- or anti- the Mormon viewpoint? [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 12:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Not to mention changing [[People's Republic of China]] to [[China]] and [[Republic of China]] to [[Taiwan]]... Simply put, using the most common name is not "NPOV" when the common name itself espouses a particular POV. [[User:Srs|srs]] 06:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::The problems with those pages started as soon as some users changed the pages away from the most common usage principle. Your example demonstrates another reason why we are best off (from a harmonious editing viewpoint) accepting the basic NPOV principle that the most common usage is, by definition, NPOV. This is because we use it because it is the most common usage - not because we are advocating the usage or expressing any views at all on its use, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 12:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:jguk, I'm interested in your response to slrubenstein's point [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJesus&diff=13525641&oldid=13524933 here]. BC/AD represents the Christian POV. What POV does BCE/CE represent? I also would like to know how you happen to ''know'' what 90% of our readership prefers? Even if a readership "preference" could be somehow demonstrated, why should this override NPOV policy? And to echo Jayjg, I also don't get the connection between reader preference and NPOV, please elaborate. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 06:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::I've already answered Slrubenstein's point twice - once before he made it. It is NPOV because we use it merely because it is the most common formulation. There is no viewpoint there - we take a demonstrable fact and apply it uniformly across WP. Not only that, there is an implication that if what is the most common formulation changes, WP will reflect that. IE we report and reflect, we do not decide.

::The 90%+ figure is based on our readership being anyone who may come to the internet looking for an English-language encyclopaedia. The expectation is that google searches would be biased towards American usage and, for an issue such as this, academic usage - both of which would skew the results towards BCE/CE. Google searches show BC/AD to be more popular than BCE/CE by a ratio of 9:1. I admit there can be flaws in google searches - but if the better ratio were even 5:1 or 13:1 the conclusion would still be the same.

::As noted above, always using the most common formulation because it is the most common formulation is always NPOV. By doing that the only "view" we express is that a particular term is most commonly used (an assertion which can be proven). We do not chose which articles or formulations to apply this rule to - we should apply it to all. Similarly, we have a picture of Tony Blair in [[Politics of the United Kingdom]] not because we approve of him or think he should be prime minister, but because he is prime minister. And the picture will change without there being any controversy when he ceases to be PM. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 12:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The BC/AD vs BCE/CE debate demonstrates the [[Criticism of Wikipedia#Systemic bias in perspective|NPOV of the editors]] and the debate does not consider as relevant the expectations of the audience. (''Whatever happened to writing for your audience''. [http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/audience.html]) The article on [[Common Era]] in wikipedia itself suggests that BCE/CE "is most often used by academics, especially in the fields of non-Western history, theology, archaeology, and anthropology." And the referenced Chicago Manual of Style provides what I consider to be a NPOV approach:

<blockquote>'''Q. '''Do you recommend the use of BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) instead of BC and AD? Has the debate about these been settled or is it still in flux?

'''A. '''We are not aware of any intense debate. The choice between one or the other is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community seem to be in danger of being (unwittingly) violated. Many authors use BC and AD because they are familiar and conventionally understood. Those who want to avoid reference to Christianity are free to do so. [http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/cmosfaq.Abbreviations.html] </blockquote>

As this is an article about'' '''Jesus''' ''it seems appropriate to use the BC/AD designation since the designation was created to coincide with his birth. BC/BCE applies a new (supposedly neutral) label to the same convention and seems out of place in an article about the person on whom the starting refernce point is based. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 12:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:As an historical purist with a [[tolerance]] for [[revisionism]], my question is at what point does BCE/CE become acceptable? In otherwords, does the proposed changes take effect immediately, henceforth & forever, or do reversions occur in previous texts working backwards, in an attempt to [[expunge]] the [[Lord]] from every aspect of our [[common]] history? [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 15:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk is so incredibly wrong it amazes me. Above, MPerel asks Jguk to respond to my criticism of his view and he replies "It is NPOV because we use it merely because it is the most common formulation." This is simply wrong. W-R-O-N-G. I have explained why several times. The popularity of a phrase or the frequency of its use '''has nothing at all to do with its neutrality'''. Why don't we look at the actual NPOV policy (which, Jimbo has said, is ''non-negotiable''):

:We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

:By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

That Jesus is Christ ''is not a fact'' no matter how many people believe so. That Jesus is Lord ''is not a fact'' no matter how many people believe so. On the contrary, that Jesus is Christ and that Jesus is Lord is, undeniably, incontrovertably, "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." Even if four billion people believed Jesus is Christ, to assert this as a fact would violate NPOV. I have asked several people to explain why BCE/CE violates NPOV and no one can give me an answer. But I can explain very simply why it is NPOV. First, it claims that the Gregorian calendar is ''common'' to many different groups. This is a fact. Second, it ''implies'' that many people do not accept Jesus as Christ or Lord. This too is a fact. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

**Here's a [[Conundrum|conundrum]] for you &mdash; If one were to believe that their argument was more NPOV, then isn't that their POV? And if both sides of an argument believe that their argument is NPOV, then don't they cancel each other out? So if NPOV = POV and NPOV + NPOV = POV then we should use both, as using either is POV, and the only way to equal NPOV is POV + POV. [http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/elementary| Elementary] my dear Watson. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 16:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Silversmith, I now realize you are a new user. Welcome to Wikipedia, and we welcome your contributions. However, if you want to avoid potential conflicts, please familiarize yourself with our policies. Some policies are really just guidelines (like our style policies) but some policies are firm and non-negotiable. [[Wikipedia: Neutral point of view]] is one such policy. I urge you to read it. In cases of Wikipedia policy, do not turn to dictionaries &mdash; turn to our policy pages (if you do not know where they are, go to the community portal and you will see). In answer to your question, our policy is:

:A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

Remember, this policy is non-negotiable. Now, if I understand you correctly, you are in part suggesting that NPOV leads us to include ''multiple points of view'' in articles. You are right. For example, an article on Jesus should include multiple points of view: Jesus was the messiah; Jesus was a false messiah; Jesus was a prophet; Jesus was the son of God, and so on. Including these multiple points of view is one important way of achieving an NPOV article. In the case of any ''discussion of the terms, BC and BCE,'' NPOV requires us to say that some people use BC, and others use BCE. But the argument here is not about how people in general use these terms, it is about which of these terms to use in this article and many argue that BC is a term that reflects a POV and BCE does not. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

&mdash; As many argue that BCE/CE is POV and BC/AD is not. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 19:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::You may want to read the internal wikipedia link I made to [[Conundrum|conundrum]]. And you may want to look at [[Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement| this]] internal link to a very important policy on Wikipedia that you seem, after such a looooong time here, to have forgotten. And also our [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|NPA]] policy. Very important. It doesn't seem you are familliar with either. And according to our NPOV policy: "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than '''advocating any side of the debate'''. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as '''people are inherently biased'''." Which is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps it is you who needs to re-read some policies. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 19:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::POV + POV = 2POV, not NPOV. NPOV - POV, however, = N. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 17:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please tell us where in the NPOV policy it says this. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::The reason I said POV + POV = NPOV is because if there are 2 opposing arguments, and each argument is POV, then the only way to reach NPOV is for the 2 POVs to be added, and thus we are saying that neither is right (or both are), and it is up to the reader make an interpretation for themselves. I read that in the policy somewhere a while ago, I'll have to go find it again. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 19:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Here it is: from [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|WP NPOV policy.]]

***"There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to be opposed to Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the creators of Wikipedia, trust readers' competence to form their own opinions themselves. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism, and nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing." --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 19:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::It's not a case of "some people use BC, and others use BCE" as Slrubenstein suggests; it is the actual fact of history that billions of people for 2 millenium of diverse languages, cultures and civilizations have left the contemporary generation a legacy using the [[Anno domini]] system of reckoning. "Some people" in the current generation, for different motivations, personally prefer to use a system that does not deny the date of origin of reckoning, but dissents from the established practices of a civilization. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 17:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::The argument that billions of people for millenia used it is bogus; the vast majority who might have used it were illiterate and so used nothing, and in any event they were outnumbered by the peoples who used other systems. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 19:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Slavery was an established practice of civilization too. Dissent is often justified over legacies involving domination of one culture at the expense of all others. That's where NPOV comes in... --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 18:09, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

:::::: Dissent from a common established practice is a POV. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 21:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:The thing is, just because some nomenclature has a ''historical'' POV does not mean that it has a ''current'' POV. For example, I can use the terms [[Holy Roman Empire]], [[Thursday]], or [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Queen Elizabeth II]] without implying that I believe that the empire was holy, or that I worship the Norse god of thunder, or that I recognize the authority of the British monarch. (Interesting note about the Quakers in the [[Thursday]] article though: should we scrub Wikipedia of "Thursday"?) Regardless of the historical origins of the abbreviations BC and AD, they now mean little more than indicating the point at which the English-speaking world stops counting years backward and starts counting them forward. Seriously, how many people read "BC" and think that the Messiahship of Jesus is being proclaimed? Or that AD means they accept Jesus as Lord? Construing BC and AD as statements of religious devotion may have been valid when the terms were first introduced, but to reject BC and AD now in the face of centuries of tradition and widespread usage seems to be justifiable only under two premises: either (1) that ''any'' term with historical origins in religious devotion carries an eternal POV taint and should be excised from Wikipedia, or (2) that the abbreviations still so strongly communicate religious meaning ''to the majority of users'' as to make the terminology indeed POV. The first premise is itself POV (by singling out religion as an unacceptable originator of terminology), and thus should not justify rejecting BC/AD. The second premise, though is where I think Slrubenstein and others are coming from (do correct me if I'm wrong). If this premise can be validated, then the POV-ness of BC/AD is established, and use of these abbreviations should be abandoned ''throughout Wikipedia'' in favor of BCE/CE. On the other hand, if BC/AD is shown ''not'' to convey religious meaning to the majority of Wikipedia users, then it should be the favored usage in most articles based on its familiarity to readers. Perhaps another poll could be taken to address the simple yes/no question: Does modern usage of BC/AD convey a religious point of view to you? Assuming a sufficiently representative response by Wikipedians, the results may be a better indication of how to resolve this controversy than simply asking for people's preferences between BC/AD and BCE/CE. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 18:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Even if BC/AD only conveys religious content to ''some'' Wikipedia readers, BCE/CE would be more neutral and thus preferable. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] 19:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::You have to understand that some (not I) view BCE/CE as POV&mdash;not in the abbreviations' meaning, but in their replacement of widely used abbreviations simply because of the latter abbreviations' historical connection to Christianity. If all that matters is that ''some'' readers' sense of neutrality is offended, very little could be written in Wikipedia without violating NPOV somehow. Take the example of [[Thursday]] I cited above. It's possible that a devout Quaker who objects to the pagan origins of the day's name might object that "Thursday" forces them to adopt a religious POV to which they do not subscribe. That doesn't mean, though, that we should purge all of the names of days of the week from Wikipedia. Why? Because those names have essentially lost their religious connotations to ''most people'', and are far preferable style-wise to "Fifth Day" because they are simply the way that English speakers talk about the days of the week. Forcing everyone to write "Fifth Day" would thus be enforcing the Quaker POV, even though strictly speaking it is a more neutral term than "Thursday". I believe the same argument can be made about BC/AD: while BCE/CE may be the choice of scholarly publications, it does not pervade common speech or literature to any extent compared to BC/AD. The fact that some choose to focus on the religious origins of the BC/AD abbreviations does not make ''using'' the abbreviations POV. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 20:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::But the fact is that people ''do'' object to BC/AD on religious grounds, and others defend them on religious grounds, including many of the people arguing on this page (on both sides), so it's clear they do have a religious connotation for many. As for the "Thursday" argument, in reality no-one objects to the usage of the name, and in any event there is no alternative proposed, much less which has gained any currency, that is a [[strawman]] argument. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 20:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::Arguments don't become logical fallacies just because you mention them and link to an article on a given fallacy, Jayjg. Really, I almost wish we didn't have articles on them, because it encourages people who don't understand them to attempt to tap into some cool factor associated with them, just by linking to them. [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 21:03, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::Strawman? According to the [[Thursday]] article at least, the Quakers ''do'' object to the usage of the name, and ''have'' proposed an alternative, "Fifth Day". I grant that it has not gained any currency that I know of (though I do not know or live among any Quakers), but one could equally argue that BCE/CE has not gained any currency to speak of in the English vernacular. What you call a strawman is actually a good parallel: some people object to a widely used term on the basis of its religious origins, so they propose a neologism to replace it. In both the BCE/CE case and the "Fifth Day" case, enforcement of the neologism in Wikipedia would be justified if use of the original term still carried the implication that the person using the term subscribes to the beliefs that originated the term. But in both cases, BC/AD and Thursday are used by millions of people regardless of their personal religious beliefs. So, one cannot read "600 BC" or "400 AD" and conclude that the author is a Christian, just as one cannot read "Thursday" and conclude that the author is a pagan. Hence the terms have lost their religious meaning (though not their origins) in the vernacular, and are thus sufficiently neutral. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::But asking people to use fifth day is more onerous (and confusing) than using BCE/CE. Additionally, not very many people are aware that Thursday stands for Thor, wheras most users here know that AD has something to do with Jesus. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] 21:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::and using an abreviation "that ... has something to do with Jesus" on the page about '''Jesus''' is definately expressing a POV {{User:Trödel/sig}} 21:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC) (tongue firmly in cheek)

:::::"In the year of Our Lord?" Um...--[[User:Goethean|goethean]] 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Granted. But just because AD has something to do with Jesus does not make it ''de facto'' POV. It's so widely used that it no longer identifies the religious POV of the author who uses it. Hence its usage is NPOV, even if its historical meaning is not. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 21:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The [[scholarship]] arguement is a fallacy seeing there has been NO evidence presented of its origin and/or common usage outside of [[religious]] scholarship. In otherwords, proponents of adopting the BCE/CE standard are basing their arguement on the POV of religious scholars. I challenge anyone to disprove the above premise. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 21:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:Gotta differ with you here, Nobs. A stylistic convention among scholars does not make something POV. I don't object to BCE/CE on the grounds that it somehow represents an anti-Christian viewpoint; I object to it on the grounds of inappropriateness for a non-scholarly Wikipedia article when, in my opinion, BC/AD is sufficiently NPOV and has the great benefit of being familiar to pretty much everybody. I would feel the same if somebody tried to replace all occurrences of "[[St John's wort]] in Wikipedia with "''Hypericum perforatum''" simply because the latter is the one used in scholarly journals and because the former might be construed as accepting the sainthood of John the Apostle. It's the wrong approach, even though ''Hypericum perforatum'' is perfectly NPOV. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 21:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Poor analogy. Maybe if St. John's Wort was as common as wheat, let's say, and it was named "Our Lord's Wort", and was understood to refer to Jesus, and global culture had accepted that without a qualm, then you would have a good point. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] 21:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::Please see my current version of the [[Jesus]] article to see how both BCE/CE and BC/AD can be used in the same article without looking like "a vacuum cleaner model." And I don't expect it to stay that long with some people here determined to get their way. --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 22:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::: You and I agree I think. I am pointing out the falacious grounds BCE/CE proponents argue on. They erroneously believe the term has gained currency beginning with and among [[secular]] scholarship, when in fact it began among Christian and Jewish scholars during recent [[ecumenical]] religious movements to represent the commonality of those two faiths. The term now has been co-opted by group whose express POV is [[Jesus]] is NOT [[Lord]]. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 22:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Did nobody read the bit of the NPOV policy that says that NPOV does not mean "use the most neutral expression"? It means "express all views fairly". It simply doesn't matter ''why'' people have one view or another -- we are precluded from analysis of why. An expression cannot be "more NPOV" than another in any real sense. Slrubenstein, your argument boils down to the belief that AD expresses a POV you don't like, and CE does not and is consequently more "neutral". But it's not "NPOV" to exclude POVs you don't like! Nor is it "NPOV" to push for "neutral" expressions. It's NPOV to push for expressions that fairly represent all views and opinions. Okay, I'd say there are three groups of people with views on AD: those who think that AD means "Jesus is Lord" and like that, those who think it means "Jesus is Lord" and don't like it, and those who don't think it has any such meaning. (I'm simplifying -- there are also plenty who don't care and haven't thought about it.) You are wishing to exclude the first and third groups and only cater to the POV of the second. This is not "NPOV" by any means. Now about CE, there are also three views: those who think it is neutral, those who think it is anti-Christian, and those who think it is a ridiculous PC contrivance. Again, you only wish to include one of those views. Neutral, you can argue for; NPOV, no way. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 00:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:::It appears to me that BC/AD includes only the Christian POV; BCE/CE includes all peoples, recognizing a dating system they all hold in common. Non-Christians can think of it as "Before the Common Era/Common Era" if they prefer, Christians can think of it as "Before the Christian Era"/"Christian Era" if they prefer. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:Grace Note, you either misunderstand or misrepresent me. I do not think AD is POV ''because'' I do not like its point of view. I simply observe that it ''is'' POV. If you think I am being disingenuous, please recal that I gave the obverse example. That this is the year 5765 ''is'' a view that I ''do'' like. But know what? Even though I do like it, I recognize that it is POV and should not be used as a convention in dating events in Wikipedia. Whether I like or do not like something has nothing to do with whether I think it is POV, as these two examples prove.

:Grace Note, I honestly do not understand what you mean by "ridiculous PC contrivance." Is our NPOV policy a "ridiculous PC contrivance?" And why is it that when I tell you I am deeply offended by people who use BC and AD &mdash; ''except in contexts that explicitly acknowledge that a Christian point of view is being represented'' &ndash; you tell me I am being ridiculous. I do not know how you were reared, but I was brought up to value courtesy. If you did not know before, you now know that the casual use of BC and AD deeply offends many people. And you know the reason &mdash' there are some people for whom saying "Jesus is my Lord" is profoundly offensive (no offense to Christians). Did you know that Jews were once banished from England, for not accepting Jesus as their Lord? Did you know that Jews were once expelled from Spain, for not accepting Jesus as their Lord? In the 1700s the European Enlightenment began encouraging the idea that people should be free to worship as they please, or not worship at all. There was a long struggle through the 19th century and into the 20th century, but by 1945 it was established that one should be able to be Jewish and be accepted as being Jewish. And that Jews could participate in the public sphere equally with Christians. If you do not see why using BC and AD is so offensive to many Jews, there is something missing in you, in your mind or in your heart, and I feel sorry for that. But to dismiss my desire to be able to particpate in the public sphere without fear of being banished (as I would have been from England once), and without being forced to become a Christian (as happened in Spain) as "ridiculous PC contrivance" just boggles my mind. I do not see how a human being can be so dismissive of the feelings of another person. And my feelings are not arbitrary &mdash; I can understand why if I told you I hated to hear the word "yellow" you would say "well, too bad, that is just silly," I really could understand that. But for you not to see why I have very good, reasonable, justifiable reasons for feeling like my right to exist as an equal member of modern society is being stepped on and tossed in the trash, when I read "In the year of Our Lord," I just do not understand what kind of human being you are.

::No, our NPOV policy is not necessarily a "ridiculous PC contrivance". It is the claim that there is a violation of our [[neutral point of view]] policy here, when all that is really involved is [[political correctness]], that is a contrivance.

::Even if all your arguments are true, they have nothing to do with '''neutral point of view'''. The argument may involve ''neutral'' expressions (but there is no consensus that any of them are really neutral), and it may even involve several ''points of view'', but that doesn't mean it gets bootstrapped into a ''neutral point of view'' issue. That is something with a very specific meaning in Wikipedia policy.

::What would violate NPOV would be for you (and the rest of us here) to "make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." In other words, "to state, imply, or insinuate" that "CE/BCE" is correct and that "AD/BC" is incorrect, or vice versa. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 17:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Nygaard, if this were an article ''about'' dating systems, I would agree with you 100%. Such an article should present different calendars (besides the Gregorian) as well as AD vs CE, not commenting on which is "right" or which is "better" but who uses which and why. I am sure such an article would explain that BC/AD is a Christian convention, and BCE/CE is a non-denominational convention, without saying that one is better. But the issue here is not claiming that one is better (which might violate NPOV). The issue here is ''which is more appropriate''. And we should pick the one that is not affiliated with one religion, one that is non-denominational, as most ''appropriate'' to conform with our NPOV policy. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 18:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:BCE and CE are not meant to force a Jewish point of view on you (as BC and AD forces a Christian point of view on Jews). It does not represent a Jewish point of view. It does not represent a Hindu point of view. It does not represent a Muslim point of view. All it says is that there is a calendar, originally devloped by Christians, which Jews, Muslims, and Hindus are quite willing to accept ''as a matter of convention'' but ''not'' as a matter of faith. It is NPOV because it represents ''no view''. And when I see you and Silversmith and Chameleon and Rangerdude taking offense at BCE/CE, this is what I see: people taking offense because non-Christians refuse to accept a Christian view. Some Christians, devout Christians, are good friends of mine but they are not offended by the fact that I am Jewish and not Christian. I have nothing against Christianity. But I am against any religious group forcing others to conform to its values. And if you tell me that you are not a Christian, then why does it matter to you so much that I use BC and AD? Why are you so opposed to BCE and CE? If you are not Christian, why does it matter so much to you? The only thing I can imagine is that when a group of people are used to dominating the world, it deeply disturbs them to realize that they no longer dominate it. This is not ridiculous PC contrivance. This is on the contrary a world that aspires to live up to the best aspects of European civilization rather than its worst &mdash; to actively reject the legacy of the genocide of Native Americans by Europeans, the unbelievable inhumanity of the Belgian Congo, of the British occupation of India, Kenya, and other parts of the world, but to embrace the ideals of the American Declaration of Independence; of the French Rights of Man; of England's slow but steady decision to treat people equally before the law. This is not ridiculous PC contrivance. It is the recognition that no one group's views should be imposed on another. I willingly accept the Gregorian calendar as a convenience, but do not force your beliefs that Jesus is Christ and Lord on me. That is unacceptable. Similarly, Wikipedia should be a place where no one group's views are foisted on another. This is what NPOV is all about. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::As a matter of public interest, I hate the color yellow. I don't mind my alma mater's school colors, blue and gold [http://www.uwec.edu]--they look nice together. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 16:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

::As a matter of public interest, my alma mater's school colours are also blue and gold, and I have a yellow shirt that I quite like. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:Dammit! Gold offends me just as much as yellow. I can't believe I am actually typing these odious words. ''Please'' stop using them! Can't you say "Ekke ekke ekke ptang zoo boing!" instead? For me? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::Clearly you are just trying to foist your hidden pro-olive agenda on the Yellow-Gold community. They'll be banning yellow construction paper in schools next, and society will eventually [[Exploding toad|explode]]. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 17:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I think the crucial question is: '''Does use of BC/AD communicate the author's POV?''' If it necesssarily does&mdash;if by reading text with "BC" or "AD" in it one can ascertain that the author asserts a belief in Jesus as Christ and Lord&mdash;then its use in Wikipedia is POV and should not be accepted; BCE/CE should be used instead as the next best alternative. If the author's POV cannot be determined by their use of BC/AD, then its use in Wikipedia is NPOV and should '''as a matter of style''' be favored over BCE/CE in most articles because of its far greater currency in the vernacular. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 17:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:Alanyst, I think you (and perhaps many others) are making a mistake about our NPOV policy. It does not say that an author cannot present his or her ''own'' point of view as if it were fact. That may be the most egregious and common violation of NPOV, but really, that is just an example. NPOV is ''not'' about specifically "the author's" point of view. It is a policy against presenting ''any'' point of view as fact. I could write an article in which I present the Nazi point of view as fact. Or, if this is too extreme, the point of view of vegetraians as fact. It doesn't matter that I am neither a Nazi nor a vegetarian, I ''would still be violating the NPOV policy''. Maybe what is wrong in this conversation is that people are taking things personally. It is true that in my reply to Grace Note I spoke personally, but only to make a specific point in response to grace note. In everything else I have writtn on BC/BCE I was ''not'' writing personally. This is not about the author's point of view. It is about privileging ''any'' point of view! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:Oh yeah, and you know what? Olive is the ''best'' color. Long live Olive! Olive rules! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 17:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::Slrubenstein, I accept your statement of the NPOV policy. I agree that no point of view should be represented as fact. The problem here is that BC/AD has dual meanings: one of them is POV, and one of them is not. The NPOV meaning is by far the predominant one in common use today, indeed to the extent that one ''cannot'' sufficiently express POV by using those abbreviations, because too many people who do not share that POV have used and continue to use them indistinguishably. So, I believe it's entirely plausible that "the year of our Lord 400" or "Anno Domini 400" can be immediately classified as POV while "400 AD" can just as immediately be viewed as NPOV, even though the last historically derives from the second, which has the meaning of the first. It's the same as if one said that "Thor's Day" was POV but "Thursday" is NPOV, despite the historical derivation. Writing "400 AD" or "Thursday" does not represent a point of view as fact, because standard usage no longer conveys whatever point of view originally was tied to those terms. They are now neutral terms that simply provide a temporal reference. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 18:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Is this like the "Christmas isn't a Christian holiday any more, it's a universal one" argument? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 18:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Vaguely similar. In fact, if you like the analogy, renaming AD to CE (on the grounds that it is a common or universal system rather than a Christian one and should therefore have a neutral name) is rather like renaming Christmas to something like Common Winter Festival (on the ground that it is a common or universal festival rather than a Christian one and should therefore have a neutral name). But I don't see you arguing for that change, although the level of international acceptance of Christmas approaches that of BC/AD. I'm certainly no Christian, and yet I find it difficult to avoid the December festivities. [[User:Chameleon|''Chameleon'']] 18:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::I do not argue for changing Christmas to something like "Common Winter Festival" because as a Jew I do not celebrate Christmas. I know it is a Christian holiday and am happy to wish my Christian friends a merry Christmas. Since it is not my holiday, they can callit whatever they want to. But the Gregorian calendar is no longer a Christian calendar, it is indeed one common to people of many different faiths &mdash; which is why, although I don't mind Christians in a specifically Christian context using "BC and AD," I do object, strenuously when anyone expects me to do the same, or thinks that it is appropriate to use these terms in a non-Christian context. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 19:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Alanyst, I agree with you about Thursday because there aren't many worshipers of Thor these days, and because if worshipers of Thor went around the world converting people to Thor-worship or killing them, it was a very very long time ago. But it was not at all long ago that Christians killed non-Christians, and quite recently that Christians went around the world trying to convert non-Christians; indeed, it still happens today. You can't compare AD with Thursday because the contexts are so different. Sociologists have studied relations of domination for a very long time, and have discovered that the dominant position is often "unmarked" -- for example, if Whites are talking about a White musician they will just say "x, the pianist" but many times if the musician is Black they will say "x the Black pianist." They may think that they do not hate Blacks, they may not think they are discriminating against Blacks, but it is nevertheless evidence of the inequality between Whites and Blacks. Slaveowners thought their slaves were happy; rich people think poor people could be rich if they just weren't so lazy. These are not strictly analogous to the case at hand, but that isn't why I bring these examples up. My point is that people who are in a privileged position seldom admit it and often do not even see it. People who are not in a privileged position, however, are acutely sensitive to these power dynamics (which is why you hear a lot of Whites telling Blacks they are "too sensitive" or "have an attitude problem" but seldom the other way around). My point: the very claim that AD and BC are NPOV, which I do believe you sincerely believe, is actually just more evidence of how POV they are. The effect of claiming that they are NPOV is either to compel everyone else to accept your POV unquestioningly, or to enable you to tell anyone who says "No, they are not neutral, and you are trying to impose your view of the world on me" that they are being ridiculous &&mdash; in other words, to tell people you disagree with to shut up, or to enable you simply not to listen to them. Don't listen to all the people whom you offend, if it makes you happy. But don't kid yourself that these terms are NPOV, claiming so is just the newest scam to get people who are different from you to be like you. I can respect you, but don't think you can compel me to be like you [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 18:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:It sounds like you are saying that no member of a privileged group can successfully argue the neutrality of anything, whereas the mere assertion of POV in any matter by a non-privileged person immediately makes it so. Do you feel that a term that once carried a POV can ever become neutral? If so, what are the criteria for it becoming so, and can a person who shares the POV it once carried successfully argue for its neutrality or use it in a neutral way? Can a non-privileged person's complaint of POV-ness actually be a matter of their own personal interpretation and not actual proof of POV? What is the POV-ness of a term that is considered NPOV by many privileged and non-privileged people alike, but POV by a smaller number of non-privileged (and even some privileged) people? Where does one draw the POV line when there ''is'' a neutral interpretation available? [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 19:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::Now I have heard it all. How can one argue against this type of logic? [[User:Slrubenstein]] wrote: <font color=blue>My point: the very claim that AD and BC are NPOV, which I do believe you sincerely believe, is actually just more evidence of how POV they are.</font> - --[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 20:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Alanyst, I am afraid you are getting defensive, which might mean I was offensive. If so, I apologize. But you misunderstand my point. I explicitly said that a once POV term can become NPOV, and I explained why this hasn't happened for the particular term in question. I also explained the criteria. I am sorry you missed it, but all I would do is repeat exactly what I wrote at the very beginning of my comment to you, to which you just responded. As for your other questions: no, I never suggested that a member of a minority or dominated group ''cannot'' make POV claims, the do so all the times. From the very beginning of this discussion I gave an example of a POV claim I could make and all Jews could make; I admitted that it would be POV, and said that for that reason I would not use it &mdash; I am sorry you missed this too (it was in my response to Grace Note, in this section). Nor did I ever claim that members of a majority or dominant group are incapable of making NPOV claims; I did not say that, and nothing I wrote above suggests that. The fact that there are Christian Whites who use BCE and CE is simple proof that they can make NPOV claims. The fact that a Christian contributing to this article might write "According to the New Testament, Jesus was resurrected ..." as opposed to the POV "Three days later, Jesus was resurrected" is another perfectly good example of a Christian making an NPOV claim. I regret that you so completely misinterpreted my words.

I will try again: Alanyst, our NPOV policy states,

:Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view. (So we not infrequently need an expert in order to render the article entirely unbiased.) To take another example, writers can, without intent, propagate "geographical" bias, by for example describing a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.

All I was trying to explain above, is that this is another example of an unconscious bias. It is not a geographical bias, as in the example in our policy. But it is still an unconscious bias, and one that I am trying to explain to you. My point is that members of a dominant group often do not recognize that some things they say or do are not universally shared but rather reflect their particular point of view. Note my use of the word "often." "Often" does ''not'' mean "always." But I do believe this is a fact. How to respond? Simple: listen, with an open mind, to people different from you, and understand that they may legitimately see something in your words or deeds that you do not see. This does not believe that ''any'' and ''all'' complaints by members of a minority or dominated group are true by any means. It ''only'' means that you concede that you ''may be'' wrong and they ''may be'' right. How do you find out? Through a conversation, of course. And for a couple of days I and several other people, including non-Jews, have given ''reasons'' for our objections to BC/AD. You also ask, "Can a non-privileged person's complaint of POV-ness actually be a matter of their own personal interpretation and not actual proof of POV?" The answer is, of course! Of course my criticism of BC/AD reflects my point of view. In fact, I thought that in my last few comments I have been making that clear! But Alanyst, the fact that my objection to AD reflects my POV does not mean that CE is POV. I object to AD because I am not Christian. But your objections to CE are ''not'' because you are not Jewish. And I am not asking you to give up your own POV. You are more than welcome to use AD when expressing your personal views. Similarly, I can use 5765 when expressing ''my'' views. But if we are going to write an article that is NPOV, we need to come up with something we can have ''in common''. I will give up 5765 and share your Gregorian calendar because it is something most people today ''have in common''. But that does not mean that most people have in common a belief that Jesus is Lord. If you want to participate in a common sphere with people who are different from you, you can't expect people to use "AD." As I said, that does not mean I insist you use 5765. But it seems evident to me that to say that "this is the 2005th year of our Lord Jesus Christ" ''is'' point of view, but saying "this is the year 2005 by convention (a convention between people of different faiths) ''is'' both accurate and NPOV. There is nothing particularly "Jewish" about BCE/CE. BCE/CE ''only'' means that this is a calendar that people of different faith's have ''in common.'' Yes, it is implied that the reason that they have this calendar in common is '''not''' because they all believe in Jesus Christ as Lord; the reason they have this calendar in common is purely by convention. I just do not see how anyone can be offended by or object to this! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

== Totally disputed tag ==

Reading through the article, and setting aside the raging debate on BC vs BCE and AD vs CE, it seems to me that the article itself should describe Jesus as Christians perceive him. Which is to say that the introductory paragraph should simply ask the reader to accept this as a premise for purposes of the article (though not, it must be said, beyond that). If you'll forgive the comparison (and I mean no offense by it), articles on divine figures in paganism don't include twists and turns throughout to qualify the fact that "not all people believe this is true." Indeed, Christians ''believe'' that Jesus existed, and that faith is at the core of their religious convictions. I'll let this thought air before being bold. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 21:16, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

:I have to disagree here. I think this page does a good job discussing in the most broad terms who Jesus is with respect to the broadest possible audience. We have an article about [[Christian views of Jesus]] and another about the [[Historicity of Jesus]] and others about all manners of things. The primary Jesus article ought to be a quick summery of the tons of specialized articles we have floating around wikipedia on Jesus and try to touch on as many topics and perspectives on Jesus as possible so that it can serve as a branchpoint to jump to all the other information we have on him. -[[User:SocratesJedi|SocratesJedi]] | [[User_talk:SocratesJedi|Talk]] 21:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::That might work, too. What I think we have to avoid is trying to create a comprehensive article that is acceptable to all sensibilities. So two choices so far are: 1) Cut the article drastically and let the other articles go into depth on important aspects; or 2) simply write this from a Christian point of view, but making the point of view explicit upfront. At least SocratesJedi and I agree that it isn't going to work in its current form. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 22:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm pretty certain the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] policy doesn't allow presenting things from only a Christian point of view. That is if you could even define one single Christian point of view, which (given thousands of denominations and billions of adherents) is obviously impossible. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 22:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Well, maybe [[User:SocratesJedi|SocratesJedi]]'s suggestion is the right one. But if you look at the entry for [[Thor]] (again, forgive the comparison), we don't insert "alleged," etc. in every sentence. Knowing that he was a mythic character upfront allows the reader to suspend disbelief long enough to read the article. --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 22:20, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

::::: I agree with Leifern's well studied critical analysis. Here taken from the Introductory paragraphs: "there may exist no other textual references outside of the [[canonical]] Christian texts", arguing a negative and inviting the reading to simply dismiss the canon of scripture to deny that Jesus ever existed. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 22:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::: I agree with your general point - however

:::::: perhaps we should change that intro slightly, after all Jesus is referred to in non-canonical Christian text, even heritical texts. He is also referred to in the Qur'an --[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 23:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::I think the section in question is referring to possibly contemporary references. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 14:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::::Yes, that's certainly how I read it. It might be that there are contemporary texts that refer to Jesus that I'm just unaware of, but other than the writings of Josephus I thought there we none (and thus the article is correct as it stands). Perhaps however it could be reworded to sound less like a speculation. ''There may exist no other contemporary references'' versus ''There are no known other contemporary textual references''. One of them is speculating, the other asserts a fact. -[[User:SocratesJedi|SocratesJedi]] | [[User_talk:SocratesJedi|Talk]] 15:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::I actually implemented this pending community consensus. New text is ''there are no other known contemporary textual references to Jesus outside of the canonical Christian texts and several non-canonical gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas''. -[[User:SocratesJedi|SocratesJedi]] | [[User_talk:SocratesJedi|Talk]] 15:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::Re-reading, I have a concern about "contemporary" (I know, I said it in the first place); the gospels certainly weren't written in 30CE; at the earliest they were written about 30 years later, and possibly as long as 100 years later. Is "contemporary" the right word? [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 16:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::: The word historians use is [[Contemporaneous corroboration| contemporaneous]], meaning "at the same time", to distinguish it from the confusing [[contemporary]] with the ambiguous meaning "now". Back to the original premise: User Leifern said "the article itself should describe Jesus as Christians perceive him". I pointed out the Intro argues a negative premise. It simply invites the reader to deny the [[canon of scripture]], and they can deny the existence of Jesus. Whereas the canon of scripture has a fourfold corroboration: Matthew is corroborated by 3 other witnesses; Mark is corroborated by 2 other witnesses; Luke is corroborated by John. Pardon me for not being a mathematic whiz, but I beleive this formula can be expressed by a power to x degree, whereas the law only requires 2 witnesses to establish facts. Thus, the article dismisses multiple corroborations by arguing a negative, "the canon of scripture is uncorroborated". [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 22:07, 12 May in this [[Anno Domini]] 2005 (UTC)

::::::::::::Hmm, I see you've written an article about it. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]^{<font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font>} 22:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Agreed, ''contemporary'' is ambigious. Updated with contemporaneous. With respect to [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] concerns, I think that the fact that the only information we have on Jesus comes from the Gospels and a handful of references from ancient historians does merit inclusion. The '''inclusion''' of such information does not "invite the reader to deny the canon of scripture", it is the '''facts themselves''' which some people claim invites that type of denial. Our intro ought not to argue for anything and dispassionately present the facts. Perhaps you can say the phrasing of that specific sentence is biased, but the inclusion itself is not. Indeed, to remove it to prevent people from rejecting the validity of historical claims about Jesus would be a POV move in the article. What the article should basically say is this: "Here's the deal, reader, the Gosples and some other texts present this information. There are some historians who also report this but those texts are controvertial to a degree. There aren't many other contemporaneous references to Jesus that are solidly verified." It would be wrong to imply either that (a) the evidence for Jesus' existance and the validity of the gosples is beyond question or (b) the evidence for Jesus's existance and validity of the gosples is horribly unsupported and ought to be ignored. Report facts, let readers decide. I think it's more or less NPOV as it stands, but please disagree if you feel I'm wrong. -[[User:SocratesJedi|SocratesJedi]] | [[User_talk:SocratesJedi|Talk]] 00:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: Very good analysis, and you are getting to the heart of the arguement. The [[canon of scripture]] (which evidently is an article that soon needs to be written) was not contemporaneous to the event, it was several centuries later that the so-called "canonical texts" were seperated from what biblical scholars call merely "historical texts" (like Gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Barnabas etc). The reference here is strictly out of place and therefore presents an arguement. Also, the arguement asks to disprove a negative ("since none other exists, therefore..."). Further, it is deceptive, cause it takes what is essentially 4 corroborating witnesses, and presents them as one ("the bible", or "New Testament", or "canonical texts"), even though contemporaneously to [[Time of Christ]] (digression:another article which needs to be written, seeing [[AD]] and [[CE]] are reckoned from the Time of Christ, not from the Birth of Christ) no such canon of scripture existed outside of Hebrew texts, i.e. [[Torah]] and [[the Prophets]]. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 01:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:Strongly disagree that Christian pereception of Jesus should drive this article, to the exclusion of other viewpoints. [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]] 15:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Me too, and this is simply a matter of complying with the NPOV policy. About a year ago, in fact, this article was much longer because it included as many different views of Jesus as possible. It was too long, and we spun off linked articles including [[Historicity of Jesus]] and [[Historical and cultural background of Jesus]] which do not take the Christian view. We agree that the Christian view would ''dominate'' this article. But that does not mean that the article should express ''only'' the Christian view or even privilege it. The bulk of the article provides the NT view of Jesus, but with small subsections directing readers to linked articles, and the whole thing is writtenin NPOV. Perhaps we can do a better job of this, but this is the job we should be doing. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:It seems to me that this article then, should be, abbreviated drastically and make references to other articles that discuss various aspects of the topic, e.g., historicity, religious interpretations, etc. I'll give this idea a couple of days and try my hand at it. Who objects? --[[User:Leifern|Leifern]] 19:40, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

::Why ought this to be abbreviated drastically? It seems to be preforming it's function well at the moment. While it's good that we have many articles discussing specialized subjects, it doesn't mean that this main page should be ''just'' a way of introducting them. This page does a good job of giving a reader a view of Jesus in ''just enough'' detail to satisfy the casual reader with additional information available for the exceedingly diligent ones. A reader shouldn't come away from the page thinking that the information was insufficient and that would probably be the case if we were to scale-down this article. There's something to be said for avoiding overly long articles (because nobody wants to read an article for more than 15 minutes or so), but those cases are not numerous and I feel strongly that this is not one of these cases. The current article gives a concise and NPOV'ed introduction to Jesus and is mostly good as it stands. (Of course, improvement can always be executed, but reduction of the article's information would not be an improvement). -[[User:SocratesJedi|SocratesJedi]] | [[User_talk:SocratesJedi|Talk]] 00:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

==A call to reason==

I'm quite surprised by Slrubenstein's comments. From what I've seen in the past, he usually seeks to comment on controversial subjects in a scholarly and unpassioned way.

Suppose I make the statement "Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44BC". 99.9% of people would take that statement as conveying the information that Caesar was murdered 2048 years ago.

From what I can see Slrubenstein is interpreting that statement as meaning that Caesar was murdered 2048 years ago, and Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour!

:Nope, I never said that, in fact I have said the opposite. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::On the contrary - you have said that using BC/AD notation is inappropriate because it suggests a view that Jesus is Christ. It doesn't - it's just a way of denoting dates, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:I am opposed to "AD" and "BC" for that reason. But I am not opposed to saying "Ceaser was assasinated in 44BCE." I do not at all object to saying when Ceasar was assasinated, only to attaching to that date BC." You seem to think they are inseperable. They are not. This is a fact; since people say "44BCE" it is an irrefutable fact that the "44" and the "BC" ''necessarily'' go together. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

He also seems to take the view that his viewpoint is NPOV and anyone who disagrees with him is biased.

:Nope, I never said this and have in fact argued the opposite. It sounds like you did not read what I wrote, but I addressed this point explicitly and said the opposite of what you suggest. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::You have made it clear that you see your view as NPOV and alternative views as POV. If this weren't the case we would not be having this argument and this talk page would be much shorter, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:Nope, I said "BCE" is NPOV. I do not "own" this view, it is shared by many people. My point of view would be that Caeser died in the year 3716. That is my POV. I have ''never'' insisted that Wikipedia use this date. "BCE" is something we can have in common, despite our different points of view. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::Good point. No one has [[enslaved]] you, violated your rights, or forced you to dispute that Ceasar died in 3716 or 2048. You can use whichever method of reckoning you choose, the [[Christian]] method or the [[Jewish calender]]. Whichever you choose to favour, we will respectfully call your POV. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 02:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:Nobs, I do use 5765 when I want to. But Wikipedia has an NPOV policy that all editors must accept. I accept it &mdash; do you? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:: I use accepted convention (accepted over 2 millenium by diverse cultures, not necessarily accepeted by the contemporary generation). I do this for 2 reasons, (1) personal acceptance of the Christian spiritual heritage I willingly embrace (2) tradition. Likewise I have the deepest respect and understanding of other methods of time reckoning, [[Judaic]], BCE/CE and [[sidereal]]. BCE/Ce has its place and usage. The non-Chrisitan, [[atheist]] & [[rationalist]]s should stick to their own method of time reckoning which is [[sidereal]], and not (hypocritically might be a term used here) pretend to wish to continue reckoning time from the [[Time of Christ]] while pushing their godless POV. [[Common]] in Christian and Jewish circles which invented the term, refers to common worship and common diety. It does not refer to [[profane]] and [[vulgar]], which is [[atheist]]s and [[rationalist]]s POV that all humantiy shares. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 17:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are going to get nowhere whilst he digs his heels.

:The problem, as I stated above, is many people are personalizing this. You are personalizing it right now, which is unfair and unfortunate. There are many people who have voted, and argued, for BCE/CE &mdash; more than those who voted for AD. Do not put this all on me. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::You have been guilty of personalising this yourself - such as calling people who disagree with yourself "ignorant". Also, the whole tenet of your position is that people are being pro-Christ just by using BC/AD. Not only is this wrong, you are bringing people's religion into this discussion (which, as you know, is a highly personal thing). We really should remove all talk of religion from this discussion, but no doubt you will not agree to that [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:I identify people's claims as ignorant when the claims about our NPOV policy are not true. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::I think you ought to read the policy yourself. It clearly states that we should express all views. It equally clearly states that it does not suggest using "neutral" language etc. It is quite specific that what you are suggesting is not "NPOV". A neutral POV is a POV! Even if you feel a viewpoint is neutral, this makes it neutral, not "NPOV". NPOV is ''all views'', not ''neutral views''. In any article, we do not simply write what we consider to be the neutral view of affairs; we write all opinions, with the amount of space given to them corresponding to how widely they are held. You are in fact arguing for ''one POV'', albeit what you feel is neutral, and ''against NPOV''. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 23:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

To diffuse the situation, I do suggest that the article does not use "BC" or "AD" more than is necessary - this means that all references to years after 1 BC do not need to be prefixed by "AD", except for the first reference to a year after 1 BC.

I would like to thank Analyst for improving the quality of discussion singlehanded - he makes many good points. I also suggest that this discussion is getting us nowhere. The article has got noticeable poorer in the last 2 or 3 months, and almost all the discussion on talk is about 2 or 3 letters! Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 19:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:Some time ago I wrote a paragraph explaining how it is that you have no idea what NPOV is. You never responded to it, so I assume you ignored it. Nevertheless, you do not understand what NPOV is (I know this from statements you have written, including the one I responded to about your ignorance concerning NPOV). It doesn't matter what you think about me. This article, like all articles, should be NPOV. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::I have read all your comments on this subject. I disagree with most of them. That does not make me ignorant. I have explained how NPOV takes us here to using BC/AD notation. You are unable to argue for BCE/CE without expressing your personal politico-religious views. Yet you somehow equate a position that can only be defended by reference to your personal viewpoint with NPOV. That is where you are sorely mistaken. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

AD which means "in the year of our Lord" is inherantly POV, how could you deny it? Here is the comment I am specifically thinking about. I quote your explanation of NPOV, which indeed is ignorant, and quote our policy. You never responded to this comment of mine.

Jguk is so incredibly wrong it amazes me. Above, MPerel asks Jguk to respond to my criticism of his view and he replies "It is NPOV because we use it merely because it is the most common formulation." This is simply wrong. W-R-O-N-G. I have explained why several times. The popularity of a phrase or the frequency of its use '''has nothing at all to do with its neutrality'''. Why don't we look at the actual NPOV policy (which, Jimbo has said, is ''non-negotiable''):

:We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and values, or opinions. By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." In this sense, that a survey produced a certain published result is a fact. That Mars is a planet is a fact. That Socrates was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

:By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

That Jesus is Christ ''is not a fact'' no matter how many people believe so. That Jesus is Lord ''is not a fact'' no matter how many people believe so. On the contrary, that Jesus is Christ and that Jesus is Lord is, undeniably, incontrovertably, "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." Even if four billion people believed Jesus is Christ, to assert this as a fact would violate NPOV. I have asked several people to explain why BCE/CE violates NPOV and no one can give me an answer. But I can explain very simply why it is NPOV. First, it claims that the Gregorian calendar is ''common'' to many different groups. This is a fact. Second, it ''implies'' that many people do not accept Jesus as Christ or Lord. This too is a fact. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

:::The above references are dealt with in the title of the article [[Jesus]] as opposed to [[Jesus Christ]]. The discussion is time reckoning, not the divinity of Jesus. That the Christian method of time reckoning has become universal is a historical fact. It's acceptance by non-Christians has been, and remains, voluntary. All persons, of whatever culture and society are free to reckon time by whatever conventions they choose. There is no "victimhood" arguement here. BCE/CE convention originated among Christian and Jewish scholars as a NPOV, respecting each others beliefs. What is being proposed now is a POV, as Slrubenstein says: "That Jesus is Christ ''is not a fact''". Personally, I've always liked the BCE/CE convention because it did respect all views. But if it is to become a standard to deny Christ and promote the POV of [[atheism]], I think custom and tradition takes precedence. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 02:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:Nobs, I fear you may be misunderstanding me. When I say that BCE/CE means that Jesus was Christ is "not a fact," I did not mean that Christians are "wrong." I think you misunderstand me because I did not express myself well. What I meant was, BCE and CE are agnostic as to whether Jesus was Christ and Lord; what I meant was that BCE/CE acknowledges that ''not all people'' consider the divinity of Jesus a fact. That is all. I hope this is clearer, and I hope it makes sense to you. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::We are NOT dealing with facts here - we are discussing whether using the letters "AD", "BC", "BCE" and "CE" to denote dates is NPOV or not. No-one is suggesting we assert that Jesus is Christ. Using AD/BC notation DOES NOT ASSERT THIS. They are a date convention. If you interpret anything else into it, you are quite frankly misinterpreting it. That is why people have drawn analogies to the etymology of the names of the days of the week or the months of the year.

::I really can't understand why you can't see this. You are manufacturing "offence" where you know there is none. You are saying that people are insinuating things you know they are not insinuating (which only ends up in giving genuine offence to others). It really beggars belief that you can't look beyond the end of your nose here, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 21:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

:I have tried to follow this dispute, but I can't figure it out. Obviously BC/AD has historical precidence. ''However'', using it violates NPOV, since it ''implies'' an acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. It may be a POV I agree with, but that doesn't make it any less of a POV. Steve's assessment is solid. I can see an emotional reason for holding on to BC/AD, I can see a "conventional" reason - but I can't find an NPOV reason for using it. If NPOV is non-negotiable, we '''must''' use some other system (and in this case BCE/CE is preferable to BP, since we are now at -55 BP). [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

::BC/AD DOES NOT IMPLY AN ACCEPTANCE OF JESUS AS THE CHRIST!!!! This is the lie that Slrubenstein is trying to propagate.

::It's a two letter date marker! That's what it means. Why go into a detailed etymology of the abbreviation? That's nonsensical. Words and phrases (and acronyms) change their meanings over time. We don't go back years and years and re-create their old meanings. There's no exception here.

::As a date marker (and the most common date marker used around the world), how can it possibly be POV? [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 21:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, your hysterics do not help. Either BC/AD are arbitrary, or they actually stand for something. If you believe they are arbitrary, then it shouldnot matter to you at all what letters we use, and BCE and CE should be equally acceptable. But you keep arguing &mdash; why do you care, if they are just letters? You do care. Obviously, making other people use AD and BC is important to you. I do not understand why, but I do nknow it is wrong. AD and BC do stand for something. That is a fact. You may not know what they stand for, but I do, and I see the POV. This should not surprise you &mdash; I am sure that almost every editor at Wikipedia has written something that violated NPOV policy, and they didn't know why, and needed someone to tell them. That is all that is going on here. As I explained above (and you still haven't responded to this) your claim that if something is common it is NPOV is false and has nothing to do with our NPOV policy. It just doesn't matter how many people use BC/AD or not. You simply do not understand our NPOV policy. It states,

:First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.

You can argue all you want. But it is a fact that BC stands for "before Christ" and that represents a point of view. As such it violates our NPOV policy. You can scream at the top of your voice that many people do not know what the letters mean, so it doesn't matter. But it is a fact that many people ''do'' know what these letters mean, and that is enough to raise NPOV issues. You are so intent in forcing me to accept your beliefs (even the belief that "Christ" is something everyone should take for granted and just use, pretending the word means nothing). You just can't stand the fact that I refuse to cave in to your pressure, your pressure that I take for granted what most White Anglo Saxon Protestants take for granted. Too bad. The very fact that I and many others will not bow to your will is itself proof that your beliefs are not universal, not natural. They are your beliefs, not mine, and stop acting like everyone thinks the way you do. This is the antithesis of our NPOV policy. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Exactly - I just surveyed some people in my office - all with college degrees - less than a third (and all but one of those were attorneys) knew that AD is Latin for Year of the Lord, a few thought it stood for "after death". Most knew it was latin (or roman) had something to do with Jesus but had no clue as to what it meant. None of the poeple who knew what it meant answered yes to the question "Do you think 'Year of our Lord' when you see AD?" All said no. This is why I think this debate is a group purposefully feigning offense in order to make a change to convention for whatever reason.

:::However, as you can see from my edits, the proposed compromise (that no one is discussing) refers to years as 4 BC if that is what they are and year 4 without any abbrievation for others. This should be acceptable to all because

:::# It avoids the supposed POV of AD (which I dispute - but am willing to compromise)

:::# Follows the convention used already [[60 BC]], [[5]], [[1642]], etc. and allows the wikilinks to be used without the pipe modifier i.e. "|"

:::# It uses the conventional and widely understood BC

:::{{User:Trödel/sig}} 21:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

While I agree with you, Troedel, I have to ask why you don't want to include both systems? That's the NPOV solution. Both views are included and catered for. NPOV does not mean "most neutral". It means "everyone represented". It's so easily done that I'm astonished that we're still arguing about it (but probably shouldn't be).[[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 23:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I must disagree, [[User:Trodel|Trodel]]. It's not a group claiming offense where there is none, it is a group that is looking to avoid POV. I'll admit that I use the AD/BC convention when discussing history informally and I even used it about 10 minutes ago in an edit summary without a second thought, but when I am being careful I use the CE/BCE convention because is derived on the most common basis possible as Slrubenstein pointed out. That most people are unable to appreciate that AD has religous point of view implied in the emytology, does not remove the POV from it's usage. I seem to think the CE/BCE convention would be appealing to the widest possible audience. Even if some users didn't understand it immeditially because they were used to AD/BC, it's not like it takes more than 10 seconds to click on a wikilink to find out what it means. '''''Better yet''''', '''why don't we request that the CE/BCE versus BC/AD convention''' be written to be user-configurable like the current method of displaying dates in various formats is? -[[User:SocratesJedi|SocratesJedi]] | [[User_talk:SocratesJedi|Talk]] 00:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::You are ignoring the compromise - and bringing no objections to it. Addtiionally, the change makes [Criticism of Wikipedia|access to wikipedia more difficult to the audience]] and we are wasting time arguing about an esoteric issue because no one thinks about the meaning of the terms - just like the weekday and month examples. The point is that both are equally POV and both can be equally NPOV - because they are both based on the erroneous date of a person that is controversial. But that is the convention as it is used. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 01:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:Well-said, Socrates-Jedi. Trodel writes, "This is why I think this debate is a group purposefully feigning offense in order to make a change to convention for whatever reason." This statement is itself offensive. You can ask all your friends, co-workers, and neighbors what AD means and they can ''all'' say "I dunno." All that means is that you do not happen to know people who do. You can ask all your friends, co-workers, and neighbors whether they care what AD means and they can ''all'' say "not me." All that means is that you do not happen to know any people who care. But for you to leap from the fact that you don't know anyone who cares to the conclusion that those people who care are faking it is patronizing and insulting. Like Jguk, you have to accept the fact that not everyone in the world thinks like you. Not everyone in this world thinks like your friends, neighbors, and co-workers. You are claiming that "If you disagree with me, you are faking it" is pure and simple arrogance. There are people who know, and who care. They are not faking it. Please re-read the NPOV policy. You are acting as if the fact that your beliefs are common, no other view is legitimate. This is the ''opposite'' of NPOV. Our policy states,

::"First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

:The only way to comply with NPOV policy is to say "Some people use CE, others use AD." &mdash; that is okay. But to assert that something is x number of years before Christ &mdash; as if believing in Christ is something that should not even be question &ndash; is to assert a point of view as if it were a fact and that is wrong. Period. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::You are easily offended. And trying to explain why you are offended instead of addressing the substantive question I asked - which is why not just use BC and not AD. There is no reason to use CE or AD - it is assumed. And to explain on every page that some people use CE others use AD is ridiculously complex and would force many articles to discuss a subject that is not the topic of the article. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 01:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:I do not understand what you mean about just using "BC and not AD." If you are suggesting that all positive dates be unmarked (i.e. we just say "4" rather than "4 AD" &mdash; well, this is a compromise position I will accept without any complaint, though I wonder how hothers feel. However "BC" is just as much a problem as "AD" because it means "BC is Before Christ." And I have expleained why that violates NPOV. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you can talk about compromise. Slrubenstein has eloquently expressed opposition to "BC" and yet he is willing to support a compromise that includes both views. However, you are not. It's beyond amazement that those who oppose compromise are those who don't actually have a dog in the race! Troedel, explain to me how your use of BC and not BC/BCE is acceptable within the bounds of a policy that says that all views must be represented. Just saying "you're manufacturing the offence" does not wish away the other view, even if it has some truth to it. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:Grace Note, I'm not sure whether or not you understood Trödel's recommendation. As I read it, he's calling for discarding AD and CE altogether, and using a tag to identify only "negative years". His recommendation is to use BC, apparently, rather than BCE. So we're really back to square one. It's not actually a constructive recommendation IMHO, since it doesn't address Slrubenstein's gripe against BC/AD at all, it merely tries to deflect the issue by acting like it doesn't exist. More of the same ol' tripe. [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 03:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

::I understood Troedel's suggestion very well. It simply beggared belief that he is making it. I think your analysis is spot on. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 03:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Troedel's suggestion is very sensible in the sense that it does not try to overplay the need for using the date markers BC and AD. I disagree with him in two respects. AD does need to be used where there is some doubt as to whether a year is BC or AD. In an article that runs in time order, this would mean using AD on first instance of such a date, but not thereafter. Similarly, BC only needs to be used where there may be some confusion. So an article on an Egyptian pharoah, for instance, needs only to refer to "BC" once, and can drop the letters thereafter.

:::Troedel's observation that any "offence" found in using BC/AD is feigned or entirely manufactured is, of course, spot on. They are date markers and have no meaning other than date markers. Cf decimal points or minus signs. You would be deliberately misreading the convention if you read anything more into the notation. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 11:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, I repeated my critique of your views above, and asked you for a second time to respond to them &mdash; and you barely responded. I expressed my reasons again (in the paragraph starting "Jguk, your hysterics do not help." and you haven't (cannot?) respond to that either. Instead, you just continue to protest that your point of view is the true point of view. Jguk, you must have a very small mind if you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is faking it. What kind of world do you live in, where everyone has to agree with you? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

== Accuracy dispute? ==

The tag on the article says that both the article's "neutrality" and its "accuracy" are in dispute. I gather that the neutrality dispute is about BC vs. BCE and so on for designating years, but what is the accuracy issue? Which statements in the article are disputed or thought to be false? Anyone have a short explanation for latecomers? [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 04:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

== ?! ==

What the heck? There is no reason for this maddening debate. Silversmith offered a compromise, lets just use both dates. All this hysteria and theoretical offense is bordering on trolling. Frankly I find the idea that we'd use anything other than A.D. and B.C. on the <big>'''''Jesus'''''</big> page rather offensive.

<big>'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]'''''</big> 14:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:Please explain why you think that our NPOV policy should be suspended for the [[Jesus]] article? (But to reitterate, I do accept the "use both" compromise, which you seem to endorse, as long as the difference between the two systesm is explained). [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I obviously don't think that, indeed if we were to follow [[NPOV]] we'd ignore the bizarre "I'm offended by A.D." POV, as being too small a minority view to include here, and discuss it on the [[Anno Domini]] article instead... Unfortunately NPOV is ignored early and often in favor of [[egocentrism]] on the wiki, much to our collective shame. If you want to see more of what I think, click [[User_talk:Sam_Spade#JC|here]]. <big>'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]'''''</big> 15:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:I am glad that you reall do accept that I find AD offensive &mdash; when some claim I am faking it, that is incredibly offensive. I am, however, disappointed that you think that my being offended is "bizarre." That you do not share my reasons, or maybe do not underdstand my reasons, does not mean my views are irrational. And to suggest so is not only offensive, it undermines our NPOV policy which requres that we do not judge (in articles, yes, I don't want to censor you on a talk page) views different from our own. However, I take strong issues with your "too small a minority view." Not only is it not as small as you think, but as I have explained many times, NPOV is not based on numbers. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your views are irrational, I think they are [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bizarre bizarre] (extremely abnormal and shocking). [[NPOV]] is [[NPOV]]. Our opinions as editors are not encyclopedic. Cite someone being offended already! <big>'''''[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]]'''''</big> 15:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

: If it's a question of being offended, I and I believe a number of other wikipedians were offended when this page was renamed from [[Jesus Christ]] to just [[Jesus]]. Given that "Jesus Christ" is a well known appellation used extensively in literature and culture, to the point of even being used as a swear word, deleting "Christ" from the title still strikes me as an attack on Christianity, not a search for something more neutral. The disambiguation notice currently says that the article is about "Jesus of Nazareth", but I expect that to be challenged before long on the grounds that Nazareth supposedly didn't exist at the time Jesus was supposed to have lived there. Asking that "AD" and "BC" be purged seems to be part of the same <s>jihad</s> <s>crusade</s> campaign. And some will probably interpret my comment here as more reason to keep the article named just [[Jesus]] and to strike AD and BC. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 16:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record, Wesley, I do not remember what position I took on this but I certainly do not now object to this. I mildly prefer "Jesus of Nazareth." I do have qualms about "Jesus Christ" because many people, like Jews and Muslims, accept the existence of Jesus, and understand that Christians think he is Christ, but do not themselves think Jesus as Christ. Nevertheless, I think at the time I argued in your favor (I think my argument was, if we have an article on Queen Elizabeth, it doesn't mean we all consider her our sovereign). So I sympathize with you on the Christ as Title issue. I am, however, still strongly opposed to BC/AD. Sam asks me to cite someone offended. Here goes:

Sam, please keep in mind that many &mdash; over twenty &ndash; voted for BCE/CE above, and that I have written hundreds of words explaining my position, You don't need to read everything I wrote, but if you pick any big chunk of text you will get the idea. In the meantime, see [http://www.rossel.net/basic03.htm#_ftn1] for this:

:[1] B.C. stands for "before Christ" and AD, stands for "Anno Domini": "in the year of the Lord." Both are references to Jesus. Because Jews do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, they use the abbreviations B.C.E., for "Before the Common Era" (that is, before the year 1), and C.E., for "Common Era" (that is, after the year 1).

See [http://www.afsc.org/pwork/1299/1209a.htm] for this:

:When religious Jews refer to the Christian calendar, they write the date as such, 1999 C.E., which stands for the Common Era. Similarly, B.C.E. stands for 'before the Common Era." This way of indicating that one is using the common calendar differentiates the dates from B.C. which is "before Christ," and A.C. which is "after Christ"or A.D., "Anno Domini."

See [http://www.israelmybeloved.com/people/jewish%20q&a/] for this:

:Q. Why do Jews use BCE and CE rather than BC and AD?

:A. The BC (Before Christ) and AD (Anno Domini, Year of our Lord) method of dating is clearly a Christian system. Jews, not recognizing Jesus as Messiah but cogniscent of the need to have a dating method that is in synch with the rest of the world's identify the period we call AD as the "Common Era" (CE), and the period before as "Before the Common Era" (BCE).

See [http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/religions/jewishcalendar.htm] for

:Jews also do not use Christian terms when referring to the Western Calendar. The Western, or Christian, Calendar has B.C. or A.D. after a year in some cases. Since the Christian Calendar is centered on the birth of Jesus, Christianity's central figure, B.C. means "Before Christ" and A.D. means Anno Domini, which is Latin for "In the year of our Lord." Jewish people, on the other hand, uses the terms C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E. ( Before the Common Era). The Common Era is, of course, the time at which Jews and Christians began to have a shared history.

See [http://www.paulonpaul.org/booth/jewish_background.htm] for:

:B.C.E., “Before the Common Era,” is a theologically neutral equivalent to B.C., “Before Christ;” just as C.E., “Common Era,” is a neutral equivalent to A.D. (anno domini), “the year of our Lord.”

See [http://www.philosophy-religion.org/world/jud_5.htm] for

:WHY B.C.E. AND C.E.?

:Most Jewish historical and religious books use the designations B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) to indicate respectively the period before the birth of Jesus and the period after his birth. The explanation is simple. The authors do not wish to imply that they accept Jesus as the Christ and therefore dislike the designation B.C. (Before Christ); they do not wish to imply that they accept Jesus as Lord and therefore dislike the designation A.D. (Anno Domini - in the year of the Lord). The traditional Jewish calendar is often inadequate. Therefore the conventional calendar is accepted for practical purposes, with the designations B.C.E. and C.E.

See [http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/YU/ay0403.asp] for

:Q. In an earlier version of this issue, you used the abbreviations C.E. and B.C.E. What do they mean?

:A. C.E. stands for the "common era" that Judaism and Christianity share. B.C.E. means "before the common era." Jews adopted the terms as alternatives to the widely used terms B.C. (before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini, or Year of the Lord), which both assume that Christ's birth is the central event of history. Since this publication is directed to Catholics, B.C. and A.D. are preferred.

See [http://godonthe.net/passover/faq.html] for

:The term B.C. stands for "Before Christ" and A.D. stands for Anno Domini, Latin for the "Year of Our Lord". Because non-Christians do not consider Jesus to be their "Lord", scholars developed the non-religious term "the Common Era", abbreviated C.E. B.C.E. stands for "Before the Common Era."

I think these passages reveal three important things: first, there is no problem using BC and AD when addressing a Christian audience. Second, Jews are offended by BC and AD and use BCE and CE as a "non-denominationl" way to use the Gregorian calendar. Third, many Christians respect this. I want to remind you that BCE/CE is ''used'' by Jews but is ''not'' a Jewish dating system. The Jewish "POV" is that this is the year 5765. Most Jews are offended by saying this is the year AD 2005. But most Jews are content with saying it is 2005 CE as a compromise. As one of the sources above explains, "The Common Era is, of course, the time at which Jews and Christians began to have a shared history." [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Slrubenstein: All good research, and I truelly appreciate it very much. Perhaps you and I can stand on common ground again if I can get you to agree with me on this one point: that the BCE/CE convention originated with [[religious]] [[scholars]] and not [[secular]] [[academia]] and there has been absolutely NO evidence brought forward on this extensive discussion page (or the [[CE]] talk page) to support the claim that BCE/CE originated in [[secular]] (rationalist) [[academia]] as an effort to be more "inclusive". [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 18:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:While I think the idea of offensiveness if valid, it is secondary to the issue of NPOV. BC/AD is not NPOV. Ad asserts that we are in the time of "our Lord". Common usage ''does not'' trump NPOV. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 16:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::Of course BC/AD is NPOV. Many (and quite probably most) people do not know any other way of signifying dates. How can they possibly be POV if they are only using terms they have come across naturally? Also, what makes you think that those using BC/AD notation are doing anything other than providing information about years? Let me assure you, they are not.

::Also you seem to ignore that the very act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation is the expression of a POV. It is also creates an awful lot of offence. When one exam question in one exam changed BC to BCE there were questions raised in both chambers of the New South Wales parliament. When the teaching of BCE/CE notation was introduced into the National Curriculum in England and Wales, it generated angry letters in newspapers and confirmation from the government agency responsible that they would continue to use BC/AD notation and, whilst pupils were allowed to use BCE/CE notation if they chose, they most certainly would not be encouraged to do so.

::None of this is surprising, many proponents of political correctness have tried to change language to suit their socio-political beliefs and caused a lot of offence as a result. This is no exception. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 17:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk has still not responded to my recent comments to him, above. Now he writes "Also you seem to ignore that the very act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE notation is the expression of a POV." This is absurd. BCE/CE are neutral in that they take the view of no particular religion. You are saying "NPOV" is a "POV" and thus violates "NPOV." This is absurd on its face. NPOV is not a POV, it is a policy about not elevating any POV to dominance. This is exactly what BCE/CE does. It does not privilege the Christian point of view, because it avoides BC and AD. It does not privilege the Jewish point of view, because it does not accompany 5765. It is obvious to me why Jews are offended by using BC and AD in a non Christian context. You have yet to explain why BCE and CE offends you. So far, all your arguments amount to this: if it is different from what I am accustomed to, it is wrong. Jguk, I repeated my critique of your views above, and asked you for a second time to respond to them — and you barely responded. I expressed my reasons again (in the paragraph starting "Jguk, your hysterics do not help." and you haven't (cannot?) respond to that either. Instead, you just continue to protest that your point of view is the true point of view. Jguk, you must have a very small mind if you believe that anyone who disagrees with you is faking it. What kind of world do you live in, where everyone has to agree with you? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 18:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:I have made it clear that it is the ''change'' from BC/AD to BCE/CE that is offensive. It is a deliberate attempt to whitewash Christianity out of the picture. It is also a complete nonsense as it mistakenly takes as its premise that "BC" and "AD" should be interpreted based on their etymology rather than on how they are being used in practice. The change is unnecessary. Unwanted. No-one wants to change the language they use to please the political whims of others.

:It is clear that you have no intention whatsoever of listening to reason. You are unbending in your desire to interpret quite innocent statements in a way that offends you. Well that's up to you. If you wish to be offended by things which quite obviously are made without any intention to offend, then be so - but do not expect me to change what I do because you like to be offended by everyone.

:It may be news to you, but there's a whole world out there outside American academia that disagrees with you - and yet you consider them bigoted because they do not share your desire to wipe out even the smallest possible sign of Christianity because you are not a Christian. What kind of world do you live in that you are so intolerant of anyone who agrees with you and your politics? [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 18:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

As I think has been stated - the use of BCE is limited to certain circles and it should be used in articles related to those circles. ''The change itself'' here experesses a POV. The term is not defined by its historical derivation but rather by its use which is to demark years in a certain "era". The proposal to limit the use of the terms BC/AD as little as possible seems rejected - and the compromise solution to use both is in place despite having not reached concensus - that is troubling.

Do you know what the use of BC/BCE tells informed readers - that on Wikipedia - even on the article about Jesus - there is a concerted effort to deny the importance of Jesus in history. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 19:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::It now appears to me that both Jguk and Trodel are hypocrites. Out of one side of their mouths they insist that BC/AD are NPOV. Out of the other side of their mouths, Jguk says "It is a deliberate attempt to whitewash Christianity out of the picture," which makes it clear that BC/AD ''do'' express the Christian POV and are thus POV; and Trodel says that using BCE/CE tells the world that "there is a concerted effort to deny the importance of Jesus in history" which again makes it clear that BC/AD ''do'' express the Christian POV and are thus POV. Okay, at least now Jguk and Trodel admit that BC and AD are Christian terms representing a Christian view. But why does using BCE and CE "whitewash Christianity out of the picture?" Why does using BCE and CE "deny the importance of history?" The words "Common Era" do not in any way imply that Christianity does not exist. Indeed, if we use BCE and CE on this article, which very much explains events central to Christianity, I do not see how using these three little letters undoes the work of the whole article. Let us be brutally frank. The only think that the terms BCE and CE suggest concerning Christianity is this: not everyone believes that Jesus is Christ and Lord." Jguk and others have written ad nauseum about how I am so easy to offend, and take offense at everything (and anyone who knows my work here knows this is not true). But now I see that they are projecting. Look, it does ''not'' offend me that ''some'' people believe that Jesus is Christ and Lord. But it offends Jguk and Trodel that some people ''do not'' believe that Jesus is Christ and Lord. How hypersensitive can one get? You two must face facts: most human beings do not accept Jesus as Christ and Lord. You are welcome to your beliefs, but most people do not share them. If you find this offensive, too bad, you just are going to have to get used to it. As I have said before, the end point of Jguk and Trodel's logic is this: anyone who does not share their faith, or their beliefs, is offensive. And this, folks, is the most offensive thing of all. Like the term "Common Era," Wikipedia's NPOV policy is all about recognizing that people do not all think alike. It is almost terrifying, that Jguk and Trodel wish this weren't so. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:::You choose to read it that way - and do not follow the intent of the user. I have no intent to impose a POV. The intent of the change is to impose a POV. I am sorry that it offends you and when I edit articles on Judaism I will make the adjustment. Not every NPOV policy is to my liking but I accept them as compromise - even when I don't think they are NPOV. I proposed limiting the use of any term - but that is unacceptable to you. YOU ALSO MUST FACE FACTS - most people don't see BC/AD as imposing that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of Elohim upon them (like you apparantly do). {{User:Trödel/sig}} 21:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::::But Trodel, if this is so, why did you write that using BCE/CE tells the world that "there is a concerted effort to deny the importance of Jesus in history?" This statement proves that AD and BC serve to express a Christian POV. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]]

:::::Because most people are going to go "BC/BCE" what's that - some will ignore - others will click and learn about "Common Era" and will be amazed that the entire purpose of the system is to avoid the mention of the word "Christ" or "Domini" (which they are also probably just learning about). Then they will rightfully wonder, "why on the page about Jesus can one not refer to him by a greek and roman word for him". You choose to be offended - there is no reference to Jesus being Mašía&#7717;. They are just pagan words from another language. In short, in order to explain why you are offended you have to explain the history, the etymology, etc that most people don't give a damn about and then explain that by Christ and Lord they really mean Mašía&#7717; which offends you. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 12:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:::They just see it as a demarking of time periods. It is terrifying that you would write ad nauseum - so much so that no one can read it all because you can't just see BC and think "before common" and AD and think "after dude" or whatever - and must change the convention to one that is more awkward for the very purpose as you say to enforce the belief that "most human beings 'do not' believe Jesus as Christ and Lord" when all I see is symbols that mark time periods. Straw polls of intent don't impress you, failure of your idea to get consensus doesn't influence you. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 21:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I am somewhat torn here. I do not doubt that Slrubenstein and other non-Christians take genuine offense at BC/AD. I also do not doubt that some on the other side of the argument take genuine offense at BCE/CE. But, in my opinion, '''the mere fact that someone takes offense at a term is not sufficient to qualify the term as POV.''' If it were, there are many other terms used on Wikipedia that must by that standard be banned from use as POV, since one can find just about anyone who is willing and ready to take offense at just about anything.

It seems to me that Slrubenstein reads "500 AD" as the equivalent of "500 CE (Jesus is my Lord)". And others read "500 CE" as "500 AD (Jesus is not my Lord)". I view neither as a predicate; "500 AD" and "500 CE" make no statement of fact whatsoever ''in the English vernacular'', which is the language of Wikipedia. Thus, to my mind, they are '''equally''' NPOV. I believe, without any evidence other than my own perception of general English usage, that ''most'' people regard both styles as neutral. I believe the fact that Slrubenstein is quite willing to type "BC" and "AD" when making his arguments shows that those terms can be used without implying that the person using them holds Christian beliefs. I likewise believe that those who use "BCE" and "CE" in arguing against them do so without expressing a non-Christian POV solely by virtue of that use. To me, these patterns of usage demonstrate that the use of the terms does not express a POV except in a forced, deliberate, unnatural interpretation of the text.

'''If''' one accepted the premise that BC/AD and BCE/CE were equally NPOV, then the choice would be purely a matter of style and readability. It is from this perspective that I argue for BC/AD, and from no desire to force a religious viewpoint upon anyone or to protect the traditions of Christianity from the atheist hordes.

If a compromise can be found that preserves readability and style sufficiently, I am in favor of it. The proposal to add the 'AD' or 'CE' (or 'AD/CE' or 'CE/AD', if you prefer) suffix to dates only to avoid ambiguity has considerable appeal to me. The 'BC' vs. 'BCE' problem is stickier, since a suffix is necessary in all cases to disambiguate the date from the AD/CE date. I'm not convinced that there's an easy way to achieve this without rendering such dates unreadable with a conglomeration of abbreviations following each one. Perhaps the best idea is that the date marker be user-configurable so that Slrubenstein sees BCE/CE and jguk sees BC/AD. This is the most difficult solution to implement though, since it cannot be achieved through convention alone.

I know this horse is in a terminal condition now, so I'll try to refrain from chiming in with any further restatement of my argument, unless someone asks for clarification on a particular point. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 19:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:Look, folks, I haven't read all of your extensive debate in detail, but a few things are clear, at least, to me.

:#People aren't going to read diffs. They're reading the article. Arguing that the ''change itself'' is not NPOV is pointless, since NPOV applies to the article. As well argue that having a biased revision history is POV. WTF?

:#Given that this is the "Jesus" article, it seems to make sense that we should avoid saying "AD" in THIS context, for sure, since the 'D' in question is ostensibly J.C. himself. Makes sense, right?

:My two bits. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 20:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Graft.

:Alanyst, I know of no Jew who considers AD/BC NPOV in any way. Virtually all Jews I know are offended by it, although many accept it as just one of the petty humiliations that come from being a minority. I appreciate your intent. But I do not see how ''anyone'' can interpret BC as NPOV. I do not see how anyone can interpret it as anything other than an acknowledgment of Christ. "Christ" is in the very abbreviation! Moreover, I truly do not understand how anyone can argue that CE ''is'' POV. CE only suggests that today there is a calendar that Jews, Christians, and others have "in common." It makes no claims at all about Christ. There is nothing in the wording that states or even implies that Jesus was not Christ. I know you mean well, but it sounds like you, Trodel, Rangerdude, and Silversmith are suggesting that to believe Jesus is Christ is NPOV and anyone who says "I do not believe in Christ" is somehow being offensive. As I remarked to Jguk, how can you live in a world where you expect everyone to think like you. I do not think like you. You do not think like me. Despite this, we can ''commun''icate, and have a calendar ''in common.'' I honestly do not understand why anyone would be upset or offended that Jews share a calendar with Christians, without sharing their Christian beliefs. But this is precisely what is implied when one insists that everyone use AD/BC. You might find this interesting [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm][[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::If it were true that use of BC necessitated the interpretation that Jesus is or must be acknowledged as Christ, then you have just made such an acknowledgement by writing BC. I reject that premise, which is why I can understand that your use of BC above is not inconsistent with your beliefs as a Jew.

::I must apologize for having apparently left you under the impression that I take offense in your advocacy of BCE/CE. On the contrary, I perceive no threat to myself, my personal religious beliefs, or Christianity as a whole from the argument for BCE/CE; I quite happily regard BCE/CE to carry the same NPOV-ness as BC/AD. Further, I do not expect everyone to think like me, and I do hope you will refrain from implying that I have such an expectation. Those who take positions you cannot understand are not necessarily bigots, but you seem to imply so, and I would gently ask you to reconsider your attitude and/or phrasing in that regard. It is precisely ''because'' I regard BC/AD as neutral that I am comfortable advocating for its use in Wikipedia; if I felt that it ''required'' the user to misrepresent their beliefs then I would advocate ''against'' it. I hope this clarifies my position sufficiently for you; I truly do not mean to extend this debate unnecessarily. [[User:Alanyst|Alanyst]] 20:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I was about 10 years old when I figured out that AD was POV. That's when I found out what it stood for. My first thought was along the lines of, then if you aren't Christian you can't use that, can you? (I happened to live in a multi-religious society). "Anno Domini" - in the year of our Lord. Says it plainly enough. It took me a lot longer to figure out that BC was POV, because it isn't "before Jesus", it's "Before the Messiah". Jesus's being the Messiah is an opinion that is not universally recognised. So to say that something happened 4 years before the birth of the Messiah is POV. Choosing to abbreviate things doesn't change the meaning of the word. If I refer to the Queen as "Her Majesty" I am endorsing a POV. I might do it out of politeness were I ever in a position where it mattered. Similarly, I refuse to refer to the PM of my home country as "The Honourable" because I do not believe that he is. Sure, it's convention, but mouthing the words amounts to expressing a POV. I mumbled the Lords Prayer in school as a child long before I had any idea what it was about. Does that mean that as long as you don't know what you're saying it has no religious significance? Did prayers in Latin have no religious significance if the reader didn't speak Latin? Does the words of the Qu'ran be divorced from their religious connection if the reader doesn't speak Arabic, or reading from the Gita have no religious connection of the reader doesn't understand Sanskrit? ''Words have meaning even if you don't embrace the meaning as you speak them''. The intent of the writer is immaterial - '''it's the way the reader interprets the words'''. BC/AD have a specific meaning. BCE/CE lack that meaning, they only have chronological significance. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 21:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:I wish I could express myself as eloquently as you, [[User:Guettarda]]. When you, [[User:Graft]], [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]], [[User:Zora|Zora]], [[User:El C|El_C]], [[User:Goethean|goethean]], [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg]], [[User:JimWae|JimWae]], [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]], [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]], [[User:Flyers13|Flyers13]], [[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]], [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BrandonYusufToropov]], [[User:Jfdwolff|JFW]], [[User:Leifern|Leifern]], [[User:Kuratowski's Ghost|Kuratowski's Ghost]], [[User:Olve|Olve]], [[User:Eliezer|Eliezer]], [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]], [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]], [[User:Ambi|Ambi]], [[User:Srs|srs]], [[User:Dittaeva|Dittaeva]], [[User:Humus sapiens|<nowiki></nowiki>]], [[User:Switisweti|Switisweti]], [[User:Mrfixter|Mrfixter]], [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]], and [[User:SocratesJedi|SocratesJedi]] all agree with me (or I with you) &mdash; and we all understand one another &ndash; I just to not understand why [[User:Jguk]], {{User:Trödel/sig}} and others do not. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 22:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:::It is disingenuous to refer to the discussion as only being supported by 2 people when 16 voted against the change - just becuase 14 are much smarter than [[User:Jguk]] and me - they realized this discussion would go nowhere - doesn't mean they support a change to BCE/CE. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 12:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:I am not saying anyone is smarter than you, but I do think other people are better readers than you. I never, ever, stated that your view is held by only two people. The reason I single out you and Jguk should be obvious: the two of you almost always respond to what I write, not to what the other twenty-seven write. This is of course sill quite a bit more than the people who voted to keep AD/CE. I will say, however, that your suggestion that I think og "BC" as "Before Common," and "AD" as "After dude" is idiotic. I know what they mean, and they do not mean "Before Common" or "After Dude." And you refuse to admit that many, many people know what they mean and are offended by it. And I still do not understand how you could so carelessly disregard the feelings of so many &mdash; millions &ndah; of people who find this offensive. And I still do not understand how you can reject an NPOV alternative. You do not believe in NPOV. You believe in your POV. You claim it is NPOV only because you want everyone in the world to think like you. And when someone says "I do not and will not think like you," when someone says "That is your POV" you think you have been insulted. This is truly bizzare. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

::Your position seems to be that you have chosen to take offence with something irrationally, therefore everyone else should change their usage of language to accommodate you. I say irrationally because you choose to take no offence at the names of the days of the week or the months of the year - which have etymologies as explicit as for "AD" and "BC" . Unfortunately, like most people who have convinced themselves thoroughly of an irrational and illogical position, you are unwilling to contemplate that you may be wrong - or indeed that anyone who disagrees with you has any sort of valid argument whatsoever.

::I suggest you stand back. Ask yourself why 90%+ of the English-speaking population continue to use BC/AD? Why is it used almost exclusively in the UK - so much so that most do not even know what BCE/CE means? Why did changing BC to BCE in one exam question in one paper cause so much concern that there were questions to both houses of the New South Wales parliament? Why is BC/AD notation far more common than BCE/CE notation in India, which has only a small Christian minority? However, I fear you have lost all sense of perspective and are unable to ask yourself these sorts of question. I also fail to see what you intend to achieve by prolonging this campaign of yours - unless there really is some political motivation behind it all. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 22:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Why? Probably because it's an old custom to use the old system. People are used to it (but that doesn't make it right). Gradually that custom will change as more people will understand it's not good to hold on to the domination of the world by Christians and Christian habits. Old habits won't change in just one day, but they will eventually! It's just common sence. [[User:Switisweti|Switisweti]] 22:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you singling out me for some reason, or are you addressing yourself to the twenty-seven other people who have openly disagreed with you? As for your questions, I answered them long ago. You ignored them, as you sim to ignore or have disdain for anyone who is not your clone. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 22:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I thing that the whole "compromise" looks quite ugly and reflects poorly on Wikipedia. I would much rather one convention is used (my preference is BCE/CE), but would rather see BC/AD rather than BCE/BE / CE/AD. [[User:Srs|srs]] 17:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:Look, I also think BCE/CE is the obvious way to go as it is the only NPOV way to handle dates. Moreover, there is a considerable majority that voted for BCE/CE. I just got tired of Jguk and Trodel reverting every attempt to apply our NPOV policy, according to the majority. Someone, I forget who, proposed this compromise and I accept it if it resolves the conflict agreeably. But if we do follow our NPOV policy, and the majority vote, and use only BCE/CE, Jguk and Trodel ''will'' revert. What do you want to do? Take it to mediation or arbitration? Jguk has made it explicitly clear he will never compromise. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 19:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

::I will revert too.

::You have never even established that the use of AD/BC is contrary to the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] policy, in the terms in which that policy is stated, even if everything you have stated on this talk page (other that out-of-thin-air claims of violation of NPOV policy) is true. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 19:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:28 people have agreed that it is NPOV, and have provided ample explanation of their reasons. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 19:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

::I'm only asking one person&mdash;that would be '''you''', of course&mdash;to point out, using the specific language in which [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] policy is stated, where you see a violation of that policy. That can't really be so hard to do, is it? Or are you just going to keep trying to bullshit us? Have you ever read that policy? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 01:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:Gene, That you claim I am bullshitting you is bullshit itself that reveals you to be a troll. I have explained this over and over and over again. In several cases I have quoted the NPOV policy. That you keep asking me to do it is rude. I have explained it countless times on this page, and even in the most recently archived material. Just reread what I have written. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 13:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

::Yes, in about a [[zillion]] words on this talk page, you have quoted the NPOV policy twice, that I can see:

::1. On 15:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC) you argued that

:::*"Jesus was born about 4 B.C." is a ''value'' or ''opinion'' as those terms are used in the policy.

:::*"Jesus was born about 4 B.C.E." is a ''fact'' as that term is used in the policy.

::2. On 00:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC) you argued that "But it is a fact that BC stands for "before Christ" and that represents a point of view. As such it violates our NPOV policy." In support of that, you cited:

:::*First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one.

:: But if it is in fact a "conflicting view" (an argument for which we do not have agreement here), then what it conflicts with is also a "conflicting view". If that were true, then this policy would require that both be presented.

::I can say that this is year 5765 A.M without having to believe that [[Yahweh]] created the Earth 5765 years ago.

::You are confusing "culturally neutral language" with "neutral point of view". [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 15:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The policy is ''not'' refering to conflicts between POV and NPOV. Also, you can believe whatever you want, I was simply stating that my own POV is that this year is 5765 and thus 5765 is POV. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

==Ignorance is no excuse==

It seems to me that there are a great many people in this world with a vested interest in ignorance. For example, they either were ignorant of or choose to ignore that "Christ" means "Messiah", and that "Anno Domini" means "Year of the/our Lord (Jesus Christ)". They then contend that their readers are similarly ignorant, and that thus wikipedia should simply pander to this continued ignorance. --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 01:58, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

:No! The point is that meaning changes over time and when the meaning is not offensive why bother to change convention. There are 9 references on the WikiEN-l Mailing list to calling a "spade a spade" quite frankly this is offensive to southerners since spade is a deragotory term for black people and that phrase was often used when an objection was raised to calling someone an N.(such an offensive word I won't even type it). However, I am assuming, that sinceno one has objected to it's use, it is the common meaning for most of the world is to "use blunt language" and few know of the recent offensive meaning. (By the way, I do not use the phrase out of respect for those whom I work around; just as I would not use AD/BC around Jews or on the Jewish articles on Wikiepdia.) However, since this article is about '''Jesus''' for whom the current year reckoning system is based it seem quite logical to use the terms that were used by the Romans (and an English translation of the Greek, i.e. Christ) - to refer to that person Jesus. That the Romans meant Domini to mean Lord, and Christ to mean Messiah is of little concern because using the term to describe the man Jesus does not make him the Messiah or the Lord; it only reflects the view that the Romans thought of him as those things. Now wait -- isn't that NPOV? When there is dispute about something describe the viewpoint and attribute it. AD does this clearly by using an abbrievation for the Latin that describes the Roman view of Jesus. Sounds ok to me. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 02:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:So I will also let you show us [[User:JimWae|JimWae]], in the specific language in which the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] policy is stated, where the violation of that policy lies. I'm most interested in [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] doing so, of course. Why are you both having so much difficulty doing that? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 03:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the introduction, Gene: -- "not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." This is why all articles that deal with Jesus have a potential POV issue. It likely is an issue with all articles on religious figures (excepting perhaps those numerous & repetitive ones that have "...perspective" or "... view" in title). --[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 03:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

:no such implication is made since those willing to figure out what AD stands for will understand clearly it's historical usage and that it is a Roman viewpoint only, those that do not understand what it means will not ratify or insinuate anything. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 03:27, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Have you noticed that I am ignoring you?--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 03:30, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

:::No - but I have noticed that you have no cogent arguments to counter mine. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 04:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:I read&mdash;

:*"The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct."

:No generalities about Jesus, or generalities about religious figures in general. Tell us how saying that "Jesus was born about 4 B.C." violates the policy in this specific statement. And tell us how a change to reflect a different point of view would not be a case of stating, implying, or insinuating that the date as originally expressed is incorrect.

:The point is, what you are really arguing is at best ''[[political correctness]]'', not the specific meaning of the "neutral point of view" policy of Wikipedia. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 03:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

#How is implying Jesus died in the year 29 of our lord jesus (christ), NPOV?

#How is implying Mohammed was born in the 7th(?) century of our lord jesus (christ), NPOV?

#How is implying Moses lived 5(?) centuries before the Messiah, NPOV?

#How is implying Socrates died 399 years before the birth of the Messiah, NPOV?

#*--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 04:00, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

::No, the questions are

::#How is saying Jesus died in the year 29 A.D. relevant to NPOV, a specific, stated policy on Wikipedia?

::#How is saying Mohammed was born in the 7th(?) A.D. relevant to NPOV?

::#How is saying Moses lived 5(?) centuries B.C. relevant to NPOV?

::#How is saying Socrates died 399 years B.C. relevant to NPOV?

::To change the subject, if we want to talk about political correctness or whatever your real argument is, what are the "neutral" alternatives in which we all can express the years of the Hebrew calendar, or the Islamic calendar?

::How would reading that Jesus was born 3,760 years after the beginning of the world (A.M.) force me not to believe that the Earth is about 4,500,000,000 years old? Isn't that terminology every but as much the pushing of a particular point of view as what you've been complaining about? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 12:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

JimWae, Gene Nygaard is just a troll trying to waste your time. He is suggesting that the NPOV policy should state something specifically about AD &mdash; as if the NPOV should state something specifically about fascism, Hitler, Holocaust, Genocide, Feminism, and countless other objects of NPOV disputes. That is absurd and he either really means this, which means he has no clue as to what "policies" are, or he is just trying to waste your time. No one here has suggested that we should say that Jesus was born in 3,760, so that is just a red-herring he is making up in order to waste your time. But to ask, after kilobytes of explanation, why saying this is the year of "our" Lord is not a POV, is simply trollish behavior. Ignore it. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 13:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

== Possible Origins of "Common Era" ==

According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell and Chicago trained linguist), "C.E." and "B.C.E." came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity.

However, I believe that “CE” has earlier antecedents. In a 1716 book by English Bishop John Prideaux, we find, “The vulgar era, by which we now compute the years from his incarnation.” In 1835, in his book ''Living Oracles'', Alexander Campbell, wrote “The vulgar Era, or Anno Domini; the fourth year of Jesus Christ, the first of which was but eight days.” In its article on "Chronology", the 1908 ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' uses the sentence: "Foremost among these [dating eras] is that which is now adopted by all civilized peoples and known as the Christian, Vulgar, or Common Era, in the twentieth century of which we are now living."

This 1908 example from the ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' is the first use of “Common Era” I can find, and I believe it was used synonymously with, or to replace “Vulgar Era.” “Vulgar” comes from the Latin word vulg&#257;aris (from vulgus, “the common people”), meant “of or belonging to the common people, everyday,” and I believe it was used by Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries to mean “common.” Why they used this, in addition to AD, I can only guess – I suspect it was to acknowledge that the date was commonly used, even by people who did not believe that Jesus was Lord.

The first Jewish use of this practice of which I know is from an inscription on a gravestone in a Jewish cemetery in Plymouth, England:

:"Here is buried his honour Judah ben his honour Joseph, a prince and honoured amongst philanthropists, who executed good deeds, died in his house in the City of Bath, Tuesday, and was buried here on Sunday, 19 Sivan in the year 5585. In memory of Lyon Joseph Esq (merchant of Falmouth, Cornwall). who died at Bath June AM 5585/VE 1825. Beloved and respected."

This inscription, like most, uses the Jewish calendar (5585), but ends by providing the common year (1825); presumably the “VE” means “Vulgar Era,” and presumably VE was used instead of AD in order to avoid the Christian implications.

It is true that scholars today – including Christian and secular scholars – often use “C.E.” and “B.C.E” because of its neutrality. It is true that most Jews use these abbreviations as well, for the same reason. I do think it is interesting, though, that the alternative to A.D. was first introduced by Protestant and Catholic clerics. I believe this shows that there was a time when Christians understood and respected the fact that many people do not share their faith. I know many Christians who today share this understanding and respect. I just think it is both puzzling and a shame that others so resist the idea, that there are people out there who have other beliefs. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 22:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::I believe you've done the best sourcing of anyone in this discussion and for now it is close to definitive. You almost have me convinced. I hope you will bring some of your research over to [[CE]] and talk page. Looks like it will be badly needed. Can we agree, evidence suggests it began with religious scholars (most likely Jewish) and is used by non-religious scholars (in other words, religious scholars & institutions provided the leadership in this landmark change & secular scholars & institutions followed). [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 01:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, it seems to me that CE began with ''Christian'' religious scholars -- the ''Catholic Encyclopedia''. I am afraid I do not know much about the Jehovah's Witnesses; I gather they do not think of themselves as Christian, but they certainly are not Jewish. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:[[Jehovah's Witnesses]] have been using BCE/CE ever since they started as a Christian sect at the end of the 19th century CE... See [[#Another_BCE.2FCE_use:_among_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses|the discussion on this matter]]. [[User:Switisweti|Switisweti]] 22:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

::FWIW, although I voted for AD/BC, I really don't care. I'm a secularist and actually prefer "Common Era" on principle. I was raised in a Catholic family, and it's possible that my experience led me to believe that "AD/BC" is the way it's been for centuries, and I never found it all that significant or offensive. To me, it's just like A.M./P.M. Besides that, it's a little interesting to learn the history and the latin meaning of it, but mostly just the latin. (I find the history a little disturbing. - the idea that so many people could so loyally follow a single person gave my young mind visions much like the holocaust, and that was before i knew that there had ever been a holocaust) [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]^{[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_baas&action=edit&section=new new]} 03:53, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

:Then why aren't we using the term '''[[vulgar]]?''' Because although it "originally meant 'of the common people', from the Latin vulgus. The term is now commonly used to describe things that are, from the viewpoint of the person using the word, in bad taste, indecent, or profane." In other words we give words and symbols their common usage and don't use them if the common usage is offensive. We do '''not use their etymological meaning that some might find offensive''' or in the case of vulgar - a meaning that is not etymologically offensive- because we care about what it means now.

:The arguments in favor boil down to: "it is offensive becuse of the derivation of the word," and the arguments against are "we should stick with convention because no one thinks of the derivation." Then the bad faith starts with the counter arguments being: "you don't really care about convention you want to impose your christian faith on me and everone else," and "you are feigning offense in order to push a POV." (close enough I hope) Look, I am sorry I participated in the accusations of bad faith. It really just comes down to this: '''Very few look at the symbols and think of the etymological history; therefore we should keep with the most widely understood convention.''' {{User:Trödel/sig}} 13:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is so screwed up I wonder if it is worth taking you seriously any more. When the word "vulgar" took on an offensive meaning, people ''switched'' to "common." "Common" has no such offensive meaning, so why abandon it? Conversely, AD was never rejected because it was vulgar, it was rejected because it was not inclusive. It is still not inclusive. Apology accepted, but you say "very few people think of the etymological history" and you are still mistaken. "Before Christ" is not the etymology of BC, it is what BC stands for. And although many people do not care, many do. You think that because many people do not care then there is no NPOV problem. But ''this has never been relevant to NPOV decisions, nor is it now''. That many people do not care only means that that is one POV. It does not mean it is the only or best POV. It is a POV. That is enough to require us to find an NPOV alternative. 200 years ago, people, including Christians, thought VE was an NPOV alternative. By the late 1800s, people &mdah; including Christians &ndash; replaced VE with CE as an NPOV alternative. I see no reason to reject it now. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:It is screwed up how? The common meaning changed so people accomodated the change. The meaning of AD/BC has changed ovetime where people don't recognize the original etymology so it is no longer offensive - thus the term is used. They changed from VE (because it became offensive) back to an archaic term that everyone understood (and had lost its offensive meaning). If there was such huge support for BCE/CE then why is no one outside religious scholars using - because no one cares about it (the etymology). They are rational people that think it is stupid to use new abbreviations for demarking the beginning of a new era marked by the life of Jesus (who some believe is the Christ). You still have never addressed the point that these are words (Christ & Domini) that are greek and roman (supposed pagan civilizations anyway) that you choose to make equivilent to the hebrew Mašía&#7717;. Why does what other people believe offend you anyway - if I choose to believe that [[User:Jguk|Jguk]] is the reincarnation of [[Hades]] he would probably just laugh and say whatever, because what I '''believe''' doesn't affect him - he knows he is not [[Hades]]. He would probably just chuckle, since his superior intellect knows that I am just a heathen. But you insist that what others believe is offensive to you. Who cares what they believe. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 22:47, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

: The wiki definition at [[vulgar]] I beleive is dead on, i.e. correct; I would add sometime between [[Canterbury Tales]] and the [[Protestant Reformation]] the term even took on a [[racist]] connotation, ask anyone from [[Bulgaria]], who of course are called "Bulgars" (pronounced "vulgar").

::Not my words --[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 19:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

::--[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 20:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Trodel, you are even more confused than I thought. People switched from VE to CE, ''not'' from VE to AD. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 23:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

== Problems with this article ==

There are a significant number of problems with this article as it stands. Regardless of whether you are a Christian or not, it is clear that Jesus is one of the most influential men ever to have lived. Despite him only having a one-year ministry 2,000 years ago, he is still remembered: his philosophies followed by well over a billion people. His influence today stretches into almost all, if not all, countries.

And yet this article conveys none of this. After a long discursive lead section it moves into a fairly chunky sized section questioning whether he even existed. Then throughout the article there are numerous other references to his maybe not existing. Why? A very small number of people do seriously question whether he existed, and that point is worth making - but briefly and once, not so as to dominate the article.

After questioning his existence there is a long discussion on what he means for various religious faiths. At least Christianity is first, but half of the section discusses small denominations. Do they really need so much airtime in what should be a small (32kb?) discussion on Jesus? However, the bulk of that section (80%) discusses other religions. Why? Jesus is most important to Christianity - and Christianity is the world's leading religion - why are we giving 80% coverage on his impact on the others?

Then there is a discussion on dating his birth and death. Maybe there is some interest here, and it is true that the modern calendar most popularly used worldwide takes an estimate of his date of birth as its reference point. But are all these discussions really more important than what Jesus actually did? It is only after all of this that we have his biography proper. Should this not go at the start?

We then follow the article with a very long list of books and links. These lists are, quite frankly, too long. Wikipedia is not a link directory. These should be cut down.

To try to deal with these issues I have rewritten the article. Anything deleted from the article can be found in articles linked from this page, so no information is lost. But the balance of the article is improved. Although we should boost up the section describing his life - after all, isn't a biographical article meant to describe its subject's life?

Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 14:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:We are an NPOV article. Some people believe Jesus never existed and is a creature of myth; that view must be represented. Many people do believe he existed, and Christians are obviously one of those groups and no one has ever denied that their views should be presented. But Jesus is a figure of importance to Muslims, and of concern to Jews, and their views must be represented. Finally, there is a vast body of scholarship by scholars who accept that Jesus existed, reject all supernatural elements of stories about him, argue that the Gospels relect the views of an emerging Christianity and not an objective, accurate account of his life &mdash in short, that he should be studied as any other historical figure; their views must be represented as well. Long ago we all agreed that there is not room in this article to provide an adequate account of all points of views. We decided that this article would list the various points of view with links to other articles, and provide the Gospel account ''in an NPOV way''. Jguk has already provided ample evidence that he neither understands NPOV or cares about NPOV. All he has done now is to recast this as a "Jguk POV article." I am sure the article can be approved uppon, but this is no improvement. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:We definitely should start by mentioning the people who question Jesus' existence, since this is the most fundamental question that needs to be addressed; I see no point in mentioning the issue elsewhere in the article, though. An account of his life would be the reasonable second section; religious views (both Christian and otherwise) should come third, and other material still later, since it is less important. [[User:Ben Standeven|Ben Standeven]] 06:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

----

I have made a request for comment

:Mr Rubenstein, when you wish to be, you are a very offensive man. You know full well that blindly reverting good intentioned edits is a kick in the balls - it means there is nothing meritorious about them and that you have no willingness to discuss them.

:My edits were not about hiding views - but about putting them into proportion. The view that Jesus did not exist deserves one small mention. This is because it not a mainstream view, and only a small number of people serious dispute it. It certainly should not be the first thing said in the article proper, and for his existence to be called into doubt many times throughout the article. That is NPOV - not silencing minority views, but not giving them undue prominence either.

:I have reasoned my amendments above - but you have not discussed my points. You merely accuse me of being POV - yet all I have done is reorder some sections and removed some of the side issues, which are all discussed in articles clearly linked from this one.

:It is clear that you have no intention of discussing how this article can improve anymore. Maybe you should consider taking a break from it. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 15:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, you should know that if you are going to make a major change to an article, you should allow for some discussion before doing it. Float the idea, see what people think, you may even get some constructive suggestions. Now, perhaps I misunderstood your changes and if this is the case I sincerely do apologize to you. I have no principle objection to rearranging the material. However, when you claim that the Gospel account is "what Jesus actually did," I think you are violating NPOV.

You say that "after all, isn't a biographical article meant to describe its subject's life" and believe it or not I agree with you. But what critical historians offer as an account of his life diverges considerably from what the Gospel's offer as an account of his life. ''I have no objection to including the Gospel accounts''. But the way you explain yourself, you make it sound like you think they are objective and accurate. This may be a view help by many but it is a POV and must be presented clearly as one, and if you really want to forefront a biography of his life, you should take seriously what critical historians say &mdash; not as "the truth" but as another POV. But a POV as worthy of consideration and as important as that in the Gospels.

Well, you reverted my revert. I do not want a war in this case. I do want to see what others have to say, but I will not revert again. However, a majority of people polled on this page prefer BCE/CE over BC/AD. Someone suggested as a compromise using ''both'' BCE and BC, CE and AD. Your revision deleted the BCES and CEs. I will not demand that you change all BCs to BCEs and all ADs to CEs, even though this is what the majority believes is right. I do, however, ask you to honor the compromise and put in both sets of terms. I could do it myself, but there is no point if you will just revert it, and especially if you see it as another example of my mucking with your work. I ask you to do it as part of the revision you just did, and ask you to do it in the spirit of compromise and to respect the views of the majority. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 15:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:I do not claim my reordering and amendments are perfect - just an improvement. The article needs further improvement.

:My comment that the NT account is what Jesus actually did was on the talk page - it is not in the article. As you are aware almost all of what we know about Jesus' life comes from the NT. It may not be a perfect historical source - but it is the best we have got. So that is what we have to go with. The section is clearly labelled up "according to the NT" - which puts readers on notice that it is an uncritical account taken from a source which may not be historically perfect (depending on your viewpoint). The reader is quite able to decide for himself how much store he puts by the NT.

:Quickly, on the BCE/BC issue - I do not accept the proposed compromise because it does not put the reader first. We should not carry the heated discussions on the talk page over to the article. The proposed formulation is the one most likely to completely confuse the reader, it looks naff, and screams out the question - what is going on here? I have never seen both styles used simultaneously anywhere. Therefore I do not accept having BCE/BC notation. I have noted above that thinking of the reader means we use BC (as 90%+ of our readers will tend to use BC, and many will not understand BCE). I will continue to put readers first. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 16:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If you will not accept the compromise, then you must accept the vote, which was something like 28 to 18 in favor of BCE and CE. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:I do not accept any dilution of the NPOV policy. You have not provided any justification for any change other than that it would reflect your socio-religio-political viewpoint. It is clear any change is highly controversial and POV. However, you continue to fail to recognise that change, unless gradual (which is most certainly not the case here), is POV.

::Says, he, as he unilaterally decides to rewrite/restructure the entire article to conform to his own views. Sorry, just thought it was funny. [[User:Srs|srs]] 17:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Far from it - you're all welcome to come to [[Jesus/Rewrite]] to improve the article there. It is clear that Slrubenstein will not allow any views contrary to his own to be expressed here. This is a shame. It creates a great gulf - and it is always unfortunate when one of our academic contributors takes the stance that anything that contradicts his research or that goes against his personal socio-religio-political beliefs must be excluded. Our academic contributors have a lot to add, but too frequently are unwilling to have anything that goes against there own work on WP. We have already lost 172 as he was as unbending as Slrubenstein, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 17:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:Now Neutrality has reverted my attempts to put the article in proper perspective, I am adding a NPOV notice. At present the article is not balanced, for the reasons discussed above. Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 16:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

As an aside...it says something about the power, significance, and influence of Jesus that 2000 years after he walked the earth, he ''still'' is one of the most controversial figures we know (''throughout'' the culture; this page is simply an example of that). Kinda neat. At any rate, good luck sorting all this out. [[User:KHM03|KHM03]] 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:Let me concur with with Jguk opening post in this section. Two articles need to be written to make the Jesus article complete: [[Time of Christ]] and [[canon of scripture]]. AD/BC and CE/BCE time reckoning is from the Time of Christ, not the birth of Christ (birth of Christ is of only interest to naive 1st grade elementary students who's teachers felt if they didn't explain it that way, the person probably never would have the opportunity in a lifetime to learn). The article Intro falsely states that "outside of the canon of scritpure no contemporaneous documents exist to corrobate that Jesus ever lived", which is patently not true. No contemporaneous canon of scripture existed at the Time of Christ outside the [[Torah]] and [[the Prophets]]. This is a very sublte POV that needs to be eleminated. Questioning whether or not Jesus ever existed is valid, and only needs to stated once. And if enough evidence can be emassed to question the validity of all the documents that claim he existed, then we can either limit that to a separate section or separate article. It serves no purpose in this article (or any wiki) article, to continuously second guess itself, if it seeks to any sort of source of authoritive information. [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 17:15, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to see that this article is so PoV that it warrants the PoV template. That the article is unbalanced because it's too balanced isn't an absurd view in itself, but it's not clear to me that it's true here. That Jesus is most important to Christianity is probably true, but that most of what Christianity teaches is relevant to Jesus is much more debatable. Relatively little Christian teaching is derived from Christ's reprted words and actions, being, for example, derived from ancient Greek philosophers via the work of medi&aelig;val writes like Aquinas. Moreover, in causal terms at least, Islam is as influenced by Jesus as is Christianity, Islam being in large part a reaction to Christianity. As for Judaism:

:A rabbi and a priest were discussing their careers, and the discussion turned to job prospects. "Well", said the priest, "I have a very good chance of making bishop when the current incumbent retires." "Very nice," replied the rabbi, "... and after that?" "Oh, well, said the priest, "I suppose that in theory I could become cardinal &mdash; not impossible I suppose." The rabbi was encouraging: "You'd look a treat in scarlet, I'm sure that you'll make it. And after that?" "Oh, after that it's pope, of course. I don't think of that; there hasn't been an English pope for centuries, and it'll probably be an African next." "Still, never say die" said the rabbi, "it's always possible. And after that?" The priest looked puzzled: "There's nothing after that; I mean, above the pope, there's only god &mdash; I could hardly become god." "Why not?" asked the rabbi, "one of our boys made it." [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 18:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

::Pretty funny! Here is another joke: Jguk wrote "It is clear that Slrubenstein will not allow any views contrary to his own to be expressed here" &mdash; when he full knows that 27 other editors share my view about the necessity of NPOV (and I wasn't even the first to vote!), when after one round of reverting, I accepted his organization of the article, and also when I explicitly stated in this very section that I am willing to compromise on the dates, and he replied that he will not compromise. Just some more evidence that Jguk wants to live in a world where everyone is ''just like him'', and actually finds it offensive when he discovers that many people do not think like him. Sad. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 18:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:::yes, you are good at jokes, Slrubenstein wrote "My point: the very claim that AD and BC are NPOV, which I do believe you sincerely believe, is actually just more evidence of how POV they are" Is it any wonder that Jguk can say "It is clear that Slrubenstein will not allow any views contrary to his own to be expressed here" --[[User:ClemMcGann|ClemMcGann]] 19:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

As a newbie, let me see if I understand how to make the arguement : "It is my POV that your POV is POV; whereas it is my POV that my POV is NPOV." is that it? [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 19:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

::No Nobs. I'll give you my answer, but I think the best thing is for you to read our [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] policy carefully for the explanation that NPOV is ''not'' a POV. But to answer your question (I am hoping you meant it seriously), my point of view is that this is the year 5765. Christians believe it is AD 2005. Muslims believe it is 1426 (I think, no disrespect if I am mistaken). I think the Chinese year is 4703. These are all different points of view (but please remember, my POV is that it is 5765). For Jews, Christians, Muslims, Chinese and others to be able to engage in commerce, share scholarly research, coordinate political activities, it is much more convenient to have one calendar. European colonial expansion beginning in the 1500s and peaking in the early 1900s involved the deliberate attempt to spread Christianity, by the late 1800s capitalism, and the calendar used by most Europeans, that is, the Gregorian calendar. Although the Gregorian calendar was created as a specifically Christian calendar, many non-Christians were forced to use it, and many more were encouraged to use it. The Gregorian calendar is now a convenient convention that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Hindus, and others have "in common." That is why the terms "Before the Common Era" and "Common Era" are both accurate and neutral. I will remind you once again, ''my'' point of view is that it is 5765. I am willing to use the Christian calendar, as long as it is no longer strictly identified as "Christian." saying that this year is AD 2005 is the Christian point of view. Saying it is 2005 CE is the neutral point of view. Not my view (remember it is 5765) but a neutral point of view people all over the world can use to make commerce, politics, and other '''common''' activities easy to coordinate. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 20:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

<Sincere applause>. Lucid and sound; if lucidity and soundness could overcome... well everything that they have to overcome, then there's be no more argument. Actually, my PoV is that it's the year 49 &mdash; I can't bring myself to believe all that tosh about anything existing before I did, but I go along with the Common Era system because I have to: the bank won't accept cheques with the ''real'' date. (That's a point; has anyone tried to write cheques using the Jewish, or Muslim, or other non-C.E. calendar? If so, what happens?) [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 23:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:<More applause and a small cheer> Lucidity and soundness ought to overcome and it's up to editors on this page to see that it does. Slrubenstein has laid out a solid argument, long recognized by academics, and agreed to by most of the editors who took part in the poll, so please let's stick to the dating convention that is neutral, scholarly, and wanted by the majority here. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 23:51, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mel, and Slim. But what can we do? Trodel and Jguk, and perhaps a couple of others, will not listen to reason. People have written the equivalent of pages and pages and pages of explanation for why BCE/CE is NPOV and makes sense, but Trodel and Jguk will never listen to reason and never obey our NPOV policy. So what should we do? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 00:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:I've lost track of whether people have agreed to mention both systems (BCE/BC), which is what's currently there. If they have, I won't interfere, though I personally don't agree with it: there's one neutral, scholarly convention, and I see no reason to single WP out by not using it. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 00:10, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, a vast majority of people voted for BCE/CE. It is just Trodel and Jguk and Gene who now refuse to accept the majority and our NPOV policy. A couple of people proposed using ''both'' BCE and BC as a compromise. I have stated that I am perfectly willing to accept this as a compromise, but Jguk stated that he refuses to accept this compromise (then, he accused me of being uncompromising). [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 13:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

== The name of this article ==

I realize that someone went to painstaking efforts to change every single article on Wikipedia to point to Jesus, and not Jesus Christ, the name of this article needs to be ''Jesus Christ'', not ''Jesus''.

#"Christian vegetarianism is the dietary practice of vegetarianism based on the idea that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian."

#"Christian vegetarianism is the dietary practice of vegetarianism based on the idea that Jesus was a vegetarian."

From a non-Christian's ear, version ''one'' sounds right. Version two sounds informal. There are more non-Christians on the planet than Christians. We should not refer to Jesus Christ in an informal way in Wikipedia. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 18:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:Then you are saying this article should be written from a Christian POV? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 18:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

no, i am saying that using ''Jesus'' in a sentence is informal - like one would have during a prayer, while ''Jesus Christ'' is formal, which is encyclopedic. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 18:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:Well, Wesley has argued that "Christ" should be seen as a title, and I am sympathetic to that argument. On the other hand, it seems to me that "Jesus Christ" refers only to the Christian Jesus, since non Christians do not refer to him as Christ. I respect your view but honestly do not understand it, I mean, I don't think "Jesus" alone is "informal." Many people become so famous that they need only one name (Cher, for example, and I do grant Jesus is more famous than Cher). [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 18:58, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling an article "Jesus" is like calling an article "John". Thia article is about a specific Jesus - the one called a Messiah then and now by many. Thus he is disambiguated by the term '''Jesus called the Christ''' or (Christ Jesus or Jesus the Christ or Jesus Christ for short) because Christ was simply Greek for Messiah (anointed one). But arguing about the title or AD/BC is a waste of time. Who is going to be mislead '''about the facts'''? Noone. [[User:4.250.27.228|4.250.27.228]] 20:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:If there were a John as famous as Jesus, you'd be right. But the reason we could call the article "Jesus" is precisely because he is so well-known. There is no John nearly as well-known as Jesus (thought John Lennon put in a claim). [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 23:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

If this article is about "Jesus Christ", will there be others called "the Muslim Jesus", "the Jewish Jesus", "Jesus for people who do not think he was a saviour", and this page made into a dab called "Jesus"? Perhaps we could move this page to "Jesus Christ the Risen Lord" and put a message "For other uses of Jesus, particularly those for people who don't share the Christian POV, see someone else's encyclopaedia"? Jesus is Jesus. If anyone can make a serious argument that the figure we are all discussing is not known ''universally'' by his given name (not even all the people in his own lifetime who met him knew him as "Christ"! I believe it was considered POV even then) they should present it. Perhaps we can have another half a megabyte on another sterile, useless debate that is easily resolved by plain common sense.[[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 04:34, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:I agree with Grace Note here - this article should clearly describe all POV's regarding Jesus with links to other specific articles about him (as opposed to one article for each pov). I do think it should be more clear in the intro why he is such an influential historical figure. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 04:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

== size of this article....347K ?!?! ==

This article is '''ten times''' the recommended size for an article. It needs to be parsed down dramatically. Sub-articles need to be created. I am happy to help. [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 18:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:The talk page is 347 kb (and growing). The article itself is only 45 kb. [[User:Srs|srs]] 18:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

oh oops. it's the TALK page that is 347K. my mistake :) [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 18:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Archive it. And let me close with this from Act 10:15: '''What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.''' [[User:Nobs|Nobs]] 18:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

:<code>[T]he most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.<code> [[User:El C|El_C]] 23:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes.. and of course a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 10:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

::I do believe the most appropriate quote for this talk page would be: [[The Divine Comedy|"Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate".]] Perhaps it should be up the top in bold? --[[User:Silversmith|Silversmith]] 12:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

*Looking at this talk page, I am reminded of this quote from ''[[It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown]]'': "I've learned there are three things you don't discuss with people: religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin." [[User:CuteLittleDoggie|CuteLittleDoggie]] 05:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

== Calm Down Everyone ==

I would like to recommend that everyone involved in the most heated of debates on this talk page take a 12-24 hour breather. Re-read everyones contributions, write your responses, and TAKE 23 HOURS and 59:30 MINUTES to CONSIDER them. Too much bandwidth has already been wasted on this talk-page with people arguing irrelevant points. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. This talk-page, on the other hand, is being treated as both, by proponents and opponents on both, each, and every side of this question. Let the steam off, and then come back and let's try to reach a consensus. Written this 21st day of the Omer, the Sixth day of the Month of Iyar, in the 5765th Year of the Creation of the One and Only Real God. (NO POSERS ALLOWED!) [[User:TShilo12|Tomer]] ^{<font color=129DBC>[[User talk:TShilo12|TALK]]</font>} 07:32, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

:Having read over this talk page, I don't see how the talk is not related to the article. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 03:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

== My comments on the main article ==

The third paragraph of the intro contained too much trivia; I've trimmed it a bit.

We shouldn't pretend that the [[Common Era]] is something different from the [[Anno Domini]]; they're just two different names for the same thing.[[User:Ben Standeven|Ben Standeven]] 08:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:Not quite. This is precisely the sort of thing Wittgentsein wrote volumes on. They are two different ways to refer to the ''same thing,'' but they are nevertheless different ways used in different contexts and thus have different meanings. "The United States of America" and "The Great Satan" refer to the same thing, but have vastly different meanings. "H2O" and "Holy Water" are two different ways of referring tot he same thing, but they have different meanings. "Sodomy" and "blowjob" and "felatio" are three different ways of refering tot hs ame thing, but they have different meanings. "Venus," "the evening star," and "the morning star" are three different ways of referring to the same thing, but they mean diffeent things. Get it? [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 13:15, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

::Slrubenstein - if you think sodomy is a blowjob then you are very (sorely?) mistaken! [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 13:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:well, I admit sodomy means ''other things'' besides (but including) blowjob. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 16:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

::I can't speak for all English dialects, of course, but all the dictionaries that I've checked say that "sodomy" means buggery, and only buggery. I'm sure that there's a really funny joke about this &mdash; it's on the tip of my tongue, but I just can't get to the bottom of it. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 16:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Err... at least in the U.S., sodomy is ''now'' commonly understood to mean "buggery", since oral sex is now rather common and socially acceptable, and people don't want to call it "sodomy" any more. But historically, so-called "sodomy" laws include both oral and anal sex, since both of these are repellent, deviant acts contrary to nature and the Will of God, etc., etc., which is what "sodomy" really means. The definition has narrowed as mores change. Anyway... [[User:Graft|Graft]] 17:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

::::Oral sex is now socially acceptable? Not in the restaurants I frequent, it isn't! [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 18:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

To be serious for a moment, the notion that the meaning of "sodomy" is dependent on U.S. law is somewhat startling; I doubt that the compilers of the ''Collins English Dictionary'' or the ''Oxford English Dictionary'' were merely following the narrowing of U.S. legislation. U.S. law might have lumped all sorts of things in under the title "sodomy" (look at what it does to "free speech"), but that's not the point here.

Actually, what is the point here? We seem to have become slightly side-tracked. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 18:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:The point is, I think, the same as your rabbi joke above - we probably all need to lighten up a bit here and allow ourselves the odd light-hearted comment:) Kind regards, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 18:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:Well, I just found it intriguing, as a nerd. I didn't mean to suggest U.S. law was the source of the definition, merely that it reflected the colloquial understanding of the term. Also, the O.E.D. says sodomy is merely "An unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male with another.", not necessarily specifically buggery. Anyway! Sorry, sorry. [[User:Graft|Graft]] 19:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

== Comments on the rewrite article ==

We have the same trivia problem in the new third paragraph; but now it is even more trivial, since the question of J's existence is no longer being raised. [[User:Ben Standeven|Ben Standeven]] 08:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

==

Where does this come from?:

"His teachings were initially spread by a group led by 12 followers that were originally disciples but became apostles after the death of Jesus."

You people need to check your facts first. Look at the wikipedia article on Apostles for a start, and it wouldn't hurt to actually read the Bible also.

According to the Bible, Jesus selected 12 of his disciples (Greek for students) and called them the Twelve Apostles (Greek for emissary). Then, according to Acts of the Apostles, the 12 Apostles formed the Church of Jersualem which was led by James the brother of Jesus. Judas Iskariot committed suicide, so another Apostle was appointed to replace him and soon there after 7 Greeks were also appointed. And then of course there is Paul of Tarsus who nominated himself as "Apostle to the Gentiles"

You really should get your facts straight first, with Bible references so they can be verified. It's truly amazing the nonsense that is out there that has absolutely no basis in the Bible. Maybe there should be two articles: Jesus as recorded in the Bible and Jesus according to whoever wants to make up stuff perhaps from a dream last night.

:You should get your facts straight, anonymous writer. The NT mentions more than 12 apostles and there were clearly other people who followed Jesus and spread his teachings. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]]

::The Gospels don't agree on the names of the twelve, but they agree that Jesus selected twelve. After Jesus' death, the Jerusalem Church was led by James the brother of Jesus, aka [[James the Just]], who was not one of the Twelve Apostles selected by Jesus. Also, the Jerusalem Church was in conflict with Paul of Tarsus who proclaimed himself Apostle to the Gentiles, but again he was not one of the Twelve Apostles selected by Jesus.

== SOURCES!!! ==

It never ceases to amaze me the number of self-proclaimed Christians who are ignorant of the Bible. These are the facts about Jesus Kata Markon (Greek for According to Mark, known in English as the [[Gospel of Mark]]):

*Jesus was baptized in the Jordan river by [[John the Baptist]] [Mk1.9], he then went out into the wilderness for 40 days [Mk1.12-13].

*After John was locked up (for sedition according to Josephus), Jesus returned to Galilee proclaiming the message that the time of God's imperial rule is near, time to change your ways and trust in the good news (presumably of the Bible which was then the Hebrew Scriptures or Greek Septuagint). [Mk1.14-15]

*He was called "The [[Nazarene]]" [Mk1:24,10:47,14:67,16:6] for reasons that are lost to history. There are many theories, the most common is that he was from Nazareth, Galilee, however it doesn't appear that existed in his time.

*He selected a group of twelve to be sent out to speak and drive out demons [Mk3.14-15], the group the other Gospels call the Twelve [[Apostles]] (apostolos is Greek for emissary).

*He was crucified by Pilate for sedition, the crime was not denying a claim to the title "King of the Judeans" [Mk15.26]. At that time the Romans occupied Judea and appointed a Prefect (Pilate), a High Priest (Caiaphas) and a Tetrarch of Galilee & Perea (Herod). Claiming to be the rightful King of Judea was considered an act of sedition by the Romans and punishable by crucifixion.

*Joseph of Arimathea claimed the body and wrapped him in a shroud and placed him in a rock tomb [Mk15.42-47].

*Mary of Magdala and Mary mother of James discovered the body missing and a young man told them Jesus had been raised (presumably by God) and had gone to Galilee [Mk16.1-8].

*The original Gospel of Mark then ends at Mark 16:8 though other endings were added later.

== A formal proposal ==

When this vast debate concerning AD and CE began, someone told me that what I really needed to do was to try to change Wikipedia policy, not this article. Well, OK. I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate]] for the detailed proposal. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 22:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

:So you basically want to enshrine your POV as "NPOV"? Did you not read the discussion above? You are suggesting that Wikipedia should adopt as a policy that it exclude a POV. That is ''never'' going to be consonant with the NPOV policy. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 00:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

::No, not at all. I have explained that BCE and CE is not my POV (my POV is that this is the year 5765). If you read the proposal, you will see my arguments for why I believe BCE and CE comply with our NPOV policy, and CE and AD do not. By the way, this in no way means that I want to banish AD and BC from Wikipedia; in fact, I think there is a place for them here. I think there are occassions when they can be used appropriately and ''should be'' used. I just do not think they should be used ''as'' POV terms. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 00:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, and I've explained at very great length why I think that your preferred versions are not "NPOV". Your "argument" simply dismisses all other views as varying degrees of nonsense and seems to stand on the entirely mistaken notion that "NPOV" means "be neutral". The policy explicitly states that this is not so. You do not address the NPOV policy's clear statement that all views must be represented fairly but insist on misrepresenting another piece of the policy.

:::And you do not accept the BC/BCE compromise. You are trying to have a policy passed that wants BC excluded from Wikipedia! This is not "accepting a compromise".[[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 02:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

::Are you thick, or just lying? I ask this in all seriousness because I ''just'' wrote that I do not want to ban BC from Wikipedia, I wrote in response to your comment concerning my proposal that I do not want to ban BC from Wikipedia, and in the very proposal, I write that BC and AD should be used appropriately in Wikipedia. How you can read all of this and say that I want a policy that excludes BC from Wikipedia is beyond me. Is English your second language? As for accepting the BC/BCE compromise, se my answer to Trodel, below. It has big words, just read it slowly. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 02:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, like everyone who disagrees with you, I am either thick or lying. While you're reading the NPOV policy once more, in particular the section that suggests that "neutral" does not equal NPOV, you might run your eyes over the policy on personal attacks. You have tactically accepted the compromise here, while you are pursuing a strategy of exclusion for BC. Your argument against it has been in part that it is not "appropriate" in this article. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 04:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

::::hmmm, Slrubenstein, I know you know better. While I completely support your well-articulated argument, these comments to Grace Note definitely crossed a line and were unnecessary. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 04:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

::Perhaps you are right, MPerel. I no longer know how to respond to "you are pursuing a strategy of exclusion for BC" when I have never stated that BC should be excluded from Wikipedia, and when, on the contrary, I have stated that BC should be used when appropriate several times. People have a right to disagree with my views and arguments. But I cannot stand it when they lie about what I have said. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 04:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

:::"the issue here is which is more appropriate. And we should pick the one that is not affiliated with one religion, one that is non-denominational, as most appropriate to conform with our NPOV policy". So you say here that we should use what is "appropriate", that BC/AD is not "appropriate" here, and in your policy proposal that we should not use BC/AD unless it is "appropriate", and I am thick, lying or mischaracterising you to suggest that you do not think it should be used here and are not really looking to compromise? Well, I may not have a PhD in obfuscation but I think it's quite clear that if A/ you achieved a policy that said that BC could be used only when "appropriate" and B/ then argued that BC was not "appropriate" here, then C/ you cannot claim that you support a compromise here or anywhere else. All you need do is argue against BC's being "appropriate" ''anywhere'' and you have excluded it. You do not -- I note -- give suggestions for when it would be "appropriate" in your view. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 05:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

::Grace Note, I really have spelled out where I think it is appropriate -- here, in my proposal, and on the proposal's talk page. I wish you would read those, but to cut to the chace: BC and AD ''must'' be used whenever presenting a Christian POV, or describing a Christian POV. That is, I have '''no''' objections to any sentence like "Christians believe that Jesus was crucified in AD 33" or "Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council in AD 1962." These are prefectly appropriate uses of AD. BC and AD are ''not'' appropriate in non-Christian accounts. Perhaps you think that because this article is about Jesus, that it is a Christian account? If that were so, yes, I would agree that BC and Ad would be appropriate. But I do not agree that because this is Jesus it is a Christian account. The Jesus article itself should not be written from a Christian point of view but from a neutral point of view. Of course, ''within'' this article Christian points of view may be expressed, and AD and BC would be appropriate. But non-Christian views '''must''' also be expressed, and there BCE and CE are appropriate. I hope this answers your questions. If you feel I should state this on the proposal page, I will, although I believe I have already albeit in an abbreviated form. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 05:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

:::My suggestion is that you simply respond that it is a mischaracterization of what you are proposing (accusations of lying is a little strong and implies purposeful malicious intent) and give a link to where you best articulated your position. I've seen you respond to people's statements with a link to your counter arguments on the NPOV BCE/CE debate page and that's a good route to go imho. Other people can read for themselves and make their own judgments. We do all need to remember to respect each other especially in these contentious discussions. And btw, I don't say this to you (or anyone else here) as the paragon of civility since I'm as human as anyone else and need to be reminded myself sometimes. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]^{<small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small>} 04:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You've shown your true colors in refusing to accept (as I have during the requested layoff) the use of '''BC/BCE''' and to avoid the use of AD/CE except when absolutley necessary by trying to impose your POV on all wikiepdia. {{User:Trödel/sig}} 01:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

::Trodel, you have lied before, and you are lying now. As far as this article is concerned, I have accepted the BC/BCE compromise from the moment it was offered. Just go here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#.3F.21] and read the second paragraph. In the section "Problems with this article," I wrote "Someone suggested as a compromise using both BCE and BC, CE and AD. Your revision deleted the BCES and CEs. I will not demand that you change all BCs to BCEs and all ADs to CEs, even though this is what the majority believes is right. I do, however, ask you to honor the compromise and put in both sets of terms." and Jguk replied that he would not honor the compromise. When the text of the article included both BC/AD ''and'' BCE/CE, I '''''never''''' deleted the BC/ADs. Moreover, in my proposal I make it clear that I believe BC and AD should be used when appropriate &mdash; I state this explicitly. I have said this several times and will say it again: you do not understand our NPOV policy, you do not care about our NPOV policy. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 01:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

:::You have said on this very page that you do not think BC/AD is "appropriate". It's not helping you to keep talking about the NPOV policy by the way: "We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions." You are insisting that ''your point of view'' is "neutral". That is the basis of your argument. But NPOV is not "express views neutrally". It is "express all views without judgment". [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 05:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

== Dubious lead section sentence ==

I find the following sentence dubious: "A smaller but still predominant portion of Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and one of the persons in the Godhead of the Trinity." Exactly how many Roman Catholics do we have in the world? And how many Protestants who believe that Jesus was the Son of God? And how many Eastern Orthodox Christians beleive this? I think that would be more than the fringe groups that don't beleive that Jesus is the Son of God. I would urge that this sentence be removed or modified. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 02:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Further, I also find that this particular text should be modified:

<s>"Some historians, citing the lack of external evidence, argue that no such person as Jesus ever existed. Other historians, however, maintain that the source documents (see two-source hypothesis, Q document, and Gospel of John), on which the four canonical Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime". </s>

Why oh why is it so impossible for those who write these things to cite ''who'' the historians are who cite ''what'' externel evidence is available!!!!

Then we have "Some say that the Gospel accounts are neither objective nor accurate, since they were written or compiled by his followers." who again says that? Do we expect our readers to just swallow this without thinking? I thought Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:No original research|no original research]] coupled with the [[cite your sources]] policies were clear that all information should be verifiable from an external source!

As for:

"There are many similarities between stories about Jesus and myths of Pagan Godmen such as Mithras, Apollo, Attis and Osiris Dionysus, leading to conjectures that the pagan myths were adopted by early accounts of Jesus." - well, there are ''some'' similarities, but from what I understand they are tenuous at best and really only supported by a few fringe "scholars" (if they can be thought of as this), like [[Alexander Hislop]] who wrote ''[[The Two Babylons]]''.

Anyway, these are my $0.02. Take them for what it's worth. I'm going back to editing [[Windows 2000]]. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 02:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

:Generally good points, although we don't want to overstuff an article with names, when we can just provide an extensive bibliography. Anyway, I tried to respond to one of your comments ... [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk ]] 03:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

::Excellent! I realise it's in summary form, but we still need to cite the sources of claims. I do appreciate you do doing this Sl. <s>Even if I disagree with the scholars.</s> <font color=red>'''WARNING'''</font> parse error! I misread that bit that Slrubenstein clarified... I ''do'' in fact agree with the scholars. Oops. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 03:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)